Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU : final report.
Date: 2017-08-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: EU Member State, advertising malpractice, application of EU law, approximation of laws, consumer information, consumer policy, consumer protection, contract, directive (EU), domestic market

Study on the application of the 
Consumer Rights Directive 
2011/83/EU 

Final Report 

Written by RPA, CSES, EPRD 
May 2017 

Justice 
and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

Unit E.2 Consumer and marketing law 

E-mail:JUST-E2 @ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study on the application of the 
Consumer Rights Directive 
2011/83/EU  

Final Report 

Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs 
Unit E.2 Consumer and marketing law   

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

DISCLAIMER 

This document has been prepared for the  European Commission however it reflects the 
views  only  of  the  authors,  and  the  Commission  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  any  use 
which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-68442-5 

doi: 10.2838/331610  DS-02-17-435-EN-N 

© European Union, 2017 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1  Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 

  Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 

  Objectives of the study .......................................................................................................... 2 

  Approach and methodology of the study ........................................................................ 4 

  Limitations of the findings .................................................................................................. 18 

  Structure of this report ........................................................................................................ 19 

2  The CRD and its implementation in Member States ......................... 20 

  Overview of Section .............................................................................................................. 20 

  The key provisions from the Directive ........................................................................... 22 

  Implementation in MS of regulatory choices ............................................................... 29 

  Enforcement and penalties ................................................................................................. 33 

  Summary of findings – comparison between the situation pre-CRD and post-
CRD ...................................................................................................................................................... 46 

3  The CRD and its effectiveness in ensuring consumer protection ...... 50 

  Overview of Section .............................................................................................................. 50 

  Consumers and consumers associations’ views on effectiveness of the CRD 51 

  Traders and traders associations’ views on the effectiveness of the CRD ....... 54 

  National competent authorities view on effectiveness ............................................ 56 

  ECCs’ views on the effectiveness of the CRD .............................................................. 60 

  Factors affecting effectiveness .......................................................................................... 62 

  Summary of findings on effectiveness ......................................................................... 102 

4  Efficiency of the CRD and its implementation ................................ 105 

  Overview of section ............................................................................................................. 105 

  Impacts on consumers ....................................................................................................... 106 

  Impacts on traders .............................................................................................................. 109 

  Impacts on national competent authorities ............................................................... 130 

  Summary of findings on efficiency ................................................................................ 132 

5  The CRD and its coherence with other EU consumer law ............... 137 

  Overview of Section ............................................................................................................ 137 

  Coherence between the CRD and other horizontal directives ............................ 137 

  Coherence between the CRD and sectoral legislation............................................ 148 

  Coherence with proposed new EU legislation ............................................................ 154 

i 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

  Coherence with actions at national level .................................................................... 155 

  Summary of findings on coherence............................................................................... 155 

6  The relevance of CRD in the current market .................................. 158 

  Overview of Section ............................................................................................................ 158 

  Stakeholders’ views on relevance of CRD .................................................................. 158 

  Trends and future-proofing .............................................................................................. 161 

  Relevance  of  specific  information  requirements  and  possible  need  for  a 
model form ..................................................................................................................................... 167 

  Summary of findings on relevance ................................................................................ 171 

7  Added Value of the CRD and its Implementation ........................... 173 

  Overview of section ............................................................................................................. 173 

  View of stakeholders on added value ........................................................................... 173 

  Summary of findings on added value ........................................................................... 179 

8  Conclusions and recommendations................................................ 181 

  Summary of findings ........................................................................................................... 181 

  Summary of provisions found the most effective in protecting consumers .. 182 

  Summary of factors reducing effectiveness ............................................................... 184 

  Conclusions of the evaluation of the CRD (Directive 2011/83/EU) .................. 185 

  Summary of recommendations ....................................................................................... 187 

References .......................................................................................... 189 

Annex 1: National implementation of CRD (country fiches) ................ 191 

Annex 2: Summary statistics online survey ......................................... 239 

Annex 3: National legal cases ............................................................. 248 

Annex 4: Consultation synopsis report (Task 8).................................. 267 

A4.1 Approach ............................................................................................................................... 267 

A4.2 Main findings of the consultation activities ............................................................. 268 

A4.3  Inconsistencies  and  agreement  between  results  from  the  different 
consultation activities ................................................................................................................. 273 

ii 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

List of figures 

Figure 1-1: Objective tree – CRD ........................................................................................ 1 
Figure 1-2: Study approach ................................................................................................... 5 
Figure 3-1: Consumers views on the level of protection when purchasing 
a good or service when buying domestically  (Q24) ............................................ 51 
Figure 3-2: Consumers views on the level of protection when purchasing 
a good or service when buying cross-border (Q24) ............................................. 51 
Figure  3-3:  Consumer  associations’  rating  of  provisions  when  buying 
domestically (Q 6) ..................................................................................................................... 53 
Figure  3-4:  Consumer  associations’  rating  of  provisions  when  buying  
cross-border (Q6) ...................................................................................................................... 53 
Figure 3-5: Traders' reasons for not selling cross-border  (Q 5) .................. 55 
Figure  3-6:  Traders:  What  are  the  main  difficulties  when  selling  cross-
border? (Q 15) ............................................................................................................................. 56 
Figure 3-7: National competent authorities’ views on CRD provisions for 
consumers (Q 23) ...................................................................................................................... 57 
Figure  3-8:  Competent  authorities  –  How  do  you  rate  transposition  of 
the provisions..(0= no problems, 5= significant problems) (Q4) ................ 58 
implementation  and 
Figure  3-9:  ECCs’  views  on  problems  with 
enforcement (Q7) ...................................................................................................................... 61 
Figure  3-10:  Consumer  and  trade  associations  -  factors  hindering  the 
effectiveness of the CRD (Q22) ......................................................................................... 63 
Figure  3-11:  National  competent  authorities  awareness-raising  and 
information campaign(s) for consumers and traders (Q 21) .......................... 65 
Figure 3-12: National competent authorities: Which provisions and sub-
provisions have been of greatest interest to consumers and traders? (Q 
22) ....................................................................................................................................................... 66 
Figure  3-13:  Consumer  associations’  views  on  the  level  of  consumer 
awareness (Q4) .......................................................................................................................... 68 
Figure  3-14:  Consumer  associations’  views  on  consumer  awareness  on 
specific requirements (Q 5) ................................................................................................. 69 
Figure 3-15: Consumers: Suppose you ordered a new electronic product 
by post, phone or the Internet, do you think you have the right to return 
the product 14 days after its delivery and get your money back, without 
giving any reason? (Q 22) .................................................................................................... 70 
Figure 3-16: Consumers: Imagine you receive two educational DVDs by 
post  that  you  have  not  ordered  together  with  a  20  €  invoice  for  the 
DVDs. Are you obliged to pay the invoice? Q23 ...................................................... 71 
Figure  3-17:  National  competent  authorities’  feedback  on  consumers 
enquiries in the last 2 years when buying domestically (Q8 ) ....................... 72 
Figure  3-18:  National  competent  authorities’  feedback  on  consumers 
enquiries in the last 2 years when buying cross border (Q 8) ....................... 72 
Figure  3-19:  Trade  associations: What  is  the  level  of  awareness  among 
traders in your country? (Q 12) ........................................................................................ 73 
Figure  3-20:  Trade  associations: What  is  the  level  of  awareness  among 
traders  in  your  country  with  regard  to  the  specific  requirements  of  the 
Directive? (Q 13) ........................................................................................................................ 74 
Figure  3-21:  Traders:  What  have  been  the  main  changes  in  national 
legislation? (Q 15) ..................................................................................................................... 74 

iii 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-22:  National  competent  authorities  enquiries  about  consumer 
rights covered by the CRD by traders (domestic) Q 11 ...................................... 75 
Figure  3-23:  National  competent  authorities  enquiries  about  consumer 
rights covered by the CRD by traders (cross-border) Q 11 .............................. 76 
Figure 3-24: ECC and consumers’ complaints with regard to their cross-
border purchases  (Q2) .......................................................................................................... 77 
Figure 3-25: Percentage of complaints concerning the CRD broken down 
by type of complaints, 2015 ................................................................................................ 78 
Figure 3-26:  Product/Service - nature of complaint and selling method
 .............................................................................................................................................................. 79 
Figure 3-27:  Complaints data relating to delivery ................................................ 80 
Figure 3-28:  Complaints data relating to Contract terms ................................ 80 
Figure 3-29:  Complaints data relating to Price and payments ..................... 81 
Figure 3-30: Consumers view on shopping experience  (Q 5) ....................... 82 
Figure 3-31: Consumers’ view on shopping experience (Q 8) ....................... 83 
Figure  3-32:  Consumers:    For  those  that  complained  (Q9  =  Yes),  what 
was the eventual outcome of this problem (Q 12) ................................................ 84 
Figure  3-33:  Consumers:    how  much  information  did  you  receive  about 
the following ?  (Q 4)............................................................................................................... 85 
Figure  3-34:  Consumers:    If  you  have  exercised  your  RoW,  have  you 
experienced any problems (Q 14)? ................................................................................. 86 
Figure 3-35: Consumers:  What type of problems? (Q17) ................................ 86 
Figure 3-36: Consumers:  If you paid charges for using credit card, what 
is the amount? (Q 10) ............................................................................................................. 88 
Figure  3-37:  Percentage  of  complaints  related  to  the  CRD  broken  down 
by COICOP, 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 90 
Figure  3-38:  National  competent  authorities’  non-regulatory  actions  (Q 
18) ....................................................................................................................................................... 91 
Figure  3-39:  Consumer  associations:  Ability  of  national  authorities  to 
enforce the provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive (Q 8) .................... 92 
Figure 3-40: Number of national legal cases ............................................................ 93 
Figure 3-41: Articles related to national legal cases ............................................ 94 
Figure  3-42:  National  competent  authorities:  areas  within  the  CRD 
requiring enforcement (Q 17) .......................................................................................... 101 
Figure 4-1: National competent authorities’ feedback from consumers on 
the perceived benefits (Q 24) .......................................................................................... 107 
Figure 4-2: Consumers: Have you exercised your RoW? (Q 6) .................... 108 
Figure  4-3: Costs  on  traders  from complying  with  the CRD  rules (Q  16)
 ............................................................................................................................................................ 112 
Figure  4-4:  Traders’  views  on  benefits  from  complying  with  the  CRD 
rules (Q 22) ................................................................................................................................. 120 
Figure  4-5:  Traders’  views  on  harmonised  EU  consumer  and  marketing 
rules and benefits (Q 19) .................................................................................................... 122 
Figure 4-6: Traders’ views on benefits and costs (Q23) .................................. 123 
Figure  4-7:  Traders  associations’  views  on  impacts  of  the  CRD  on 
traders’ competitiveness (Q 14) ..................................................................................... 124 
Figure  4-8:  Traders  associations:    impacts  on  traders’  competitiveness 
when trading domestically (Q 15) ................................................................................. 125 
Figure  4-9:  Traders  associations  impacts  on  traders’  competitiveness 
when trading cross-border (Q 15) ................................................................................ 125 

iv 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

from 

Figure  4-10:  National  competent  authorities’  feedback  from  traders  on 
costs (Q 27) ................................................................................................................................. 126 
Figure 4-11: SMEs and impacts on costs from CRD provisions (Q 16) .... 127 
Figure 4-12: Traders, benefits and costs for SMEs (Q 23) .............................. 128 
the 
Figure  4-13:  National  competent  authorities’  costs 
transposition of the CRD (Q 6) ........................................................................................ 131 
Figure 4-14: National competent authorities’ costs from implementation 
and enforcement of the CRD (Q 13) ............................................................................. 132 
Figure 5-1: Views on the interplay between EU consumer and marketing 
rules  and  EU  sector-specific  consumer  rights  in  the  area  of  electronic 
communications services .................................................................................................... 151 
Figure 5-2: Views on the interplay between EU consumer and marketing 
rules  and  EU  sector-specific  consumer  rights  in  the  area  of  passenger 
transport ....................................................................................................................................... 152 
Figure 5-3: National competent authorities: To what extent has the CRD 
proved  complementary  to  existing  measures  and  actions  to  strengthen 
consumer protection in your MS? (Q30) .................................................................... 155 
Figure  6-1:  Consumer  associations’  views  on  the  objectives  of  the  CRD 
and their relevance (Q21) .................................................................................................. 159 
Figure  6-2:  Trade  associations’  views  on  the  objectives  of  the  CRD  and 
their relevance (Q21) ............................................................................................................ 160 
Figure  6-3:  Consumers’  views  on  the  relevance  of  different  provisions 
(Q19) (NB: % of less than 5% not given). .............................................................. 160 
Figure 6-4: Consumers: Use of free-online services (Q3) ............................... 163 
Figure  6-5:  National  competent  authorities’  views  on  additional 
requirements for online platforms ................................................................................ 164 
Figure 6-6: Consumer associations’ views on additional requirement for 
online platforms ........................................................................................................................ 164 
Figure  6-7:  ECCs’  views  on  additional  requirement  for  online  platforms
 ............................................................................................................................................................ 165 
Figure  6-8:  Trade  associations’  views  on  additional  requirement  for 
online platforms ........................................................................................................................ 165 
Figure 6-9: Consumers’ views on the use of a graphical model with icons 
for pre-contractual information ...................................................................................... 169 
Figure  6-10:  Trade  associations’  views  on  the  use  of  a  graphical  model 
with icons...................................................................................................................................... 169 
Figure  6-11:  Views  on  the  use  of  a  graphical  model  with  icons  for  pre-
contractual information ....................................................................................................... 170 
Figure 7-1: National competent authorities’ views on added value of the  
CRD  (Q 29) .................................................................................................................................. 174 
Figure  7-2:  Most  frequently  used  word  by  national  competent 
authorities in relation to added value ......................................................................... 175 
Figure 7-3: Example of a word tree for ‘border’ .................................................... 176 
Figure 7-4: Consumer associations’ views on national requirements and 
impacts for consumers (Q 7) ............................................................................................ 177 
Figure  7-5:  Traders’  associations’  views  on  national  requirements  and 
impacts for traders (Q 16) ................................................................................................. 177 
  national 
Figure  7-6:  National  competent  authorities’  views  on 
provisions and impacts on consumers and traders (Q28) .............................. 179 
Figure 8-1: Consumers – reasons for not making a complaint (Q15) ...... 182 

v 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  A2-1: Consumers:  In  the  previous  2 years, which  have  you used 
to buy goods, services or digital content in your home country? (Q 2) . 242 
Figure  A2-2: Consumers:  In  the  previous  2 years, which  have  you used 
to buy goods, services or digital content from another EU country? (Q 2)
 ............................................................................................................................................................ 243 
Figure A2-3: Traders, company’s turnover in 2015 (Q 24) ............................ 244 
Figure A2-4: Traders focus of activities (Q 3) ........................................................ 244 
Figure  A2-5:  Traders:  channels  used  to  sell  directly  to  consumers 
domestically (Q 8) ................................................................................................................... 245 
Figure  A2-6:  Traders,  channels  used  to  sell  directly  to  consumers  in 
other EU countries? (Q 8) ................................................................................................... 246 
Figure  A2-7:  Trader  associations’  core  activity  of  the  traders 
represented (Q 10) ................................................................................................................. 246 
Figure  A2-8:  Do  the  traders  you  represent  sell  domestically  and/or  in 
more than one country? (Q11) ........................................................................................ 247 

List of tables 
Table 1-1:  Targeted consultation countries ................................................................ 3 
Table 1-2:  Research methods for data collection – Evaluation of the CRD
 ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 
Table 1-3: Numbers contacted per MS and stakeholder type ........................... 7 
Table 1-4:  Dates emails were sent ................................................................................... 8 
Table 1-5: Responses received to online consultation .......................................... 9 
Table 1-6:  Number interviews held ............................................................................... 11 
Table 2-1:  Implementing legislation by MS .............................................................. 21 
Table 2-2: Summary of provisions in the CRD .......................................................... 24 
Table 2-3: Key provisions -  reference and cross-reference in the CRD ... 26 
Table 2-4:  Application of the CRD regulatory choices by MS ......................... 30 
Table 2-5:  Enforcement and penalties in selected Member States ............ 35 
Table 2-6:  Consumer protection level in Member States (MS) compared 
with nat. legislation before CRD ....................................................................................... 47 
Table 3-1:  Examples of relevant national court decisions in selected EU 
countries.......................................................................................................................................... 96 
Table 3-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its effectiveness ................... 103 
Table 4-1: Benefits and costs from CRD by type of contract ......................... 129 
Table 4-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its efficiency ........................... 134 
Table  5-1:    The  CRD  and  the  Services  Directive  –  comparison  of  key 
provisions ..................................................................................................................................... 139 
Table 5-2:  The CRD and the E-commerce Directive – comparison of key 
provisions ..................................................................................................................................... 141 
Table 5-3:   The CRD and the UCPD – comparison of key provisions........ 144 
Table 5-4:  Summary of findings on CRD and its coherence .......................... 156 
Table 6-1:  Summary of findings on CRD and its relevance ........................... 172 
Table 7-1:  Summary of findings on CRD and its added value ...................... 179 
Table 8-1:  Summary of evaluation of CRD implementation .......................... 186 
Table A2-1: Completed responses by country of residence (Q 1) .............. 239 
Table A2-2: Completed responses by country of residence (Q 1) .............. 240 
Table  A2-3:  Consumers’  completed  responses  by  age  and  employment 
status (Q 25/26) ...................................................................................................................... 242 
Table A2-4:  Trader completed responses by size (Q 2) .................................. 243 

vi 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

vii 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

1  Introduction 

  Background  

Directive 2011/83/EU of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (hereafter the "Consumer 
Rights Directive" or CRD) had to be transposed into the national laws of all EU Member 
States (MS) by 13th December 2013 and was expected to apply from 13th June 2014.  It 
replaced two previous  directives, Directive 85/577/EEC to protect consumers in respect 
of  contracts  negotiated  away  from  business  premises  and  Directive  97/7/EC  on  the 
protection  of  consumers  in  respect  of  distance  contracts.  It  also  amended  certain 
provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and Directive 
1999/44/EC,  on  certain  aspects  of  the  sale  of  consumer  goods  and  associated 
guarantees. 

The  Impact  Assessment  of  the  CRD  proposal  noted  that  the  Directive  should  meet  the 
dual  objective  of  making  it  easier  for  traders  to  sell  cross-border  and  enhancing 
consumer  confidence  in  cross-border  shopping  (EC,  20081).  Figure  1-1  illustrates  the 
objectives of the intervention.  

Figure 1-1: Objective tree – CRD 

1   Source:  CEC  (2008):  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  directive  on 

consumer rights Impact Assessment Report 

1 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The CRD has fully harmonised certain consumer protection rules applying to off-premises 
and distance purchases of goods and services, as well as the provision of digital content, 
mainly related to pre-contractual  information requirements  and the  right of withdrawal.  
It has also  fully harmonised requirements regarding the conclusion of distance and  off-
premises  contracts,  and  rules  on  delivery  and  the  passing  of  risk  applicable  to  all 
consumer sales contracts, as well as rules on fees for the use of means of payment and 
fees for communication by telephone applicable to all type of contracts. 

In  parallel  with  this  evaluation,  the  European  Commission  carried  out  an  open  public 
consultation (OPC) for the Fitness Check of EU consumer and marketing law from 12 May 
to  12  September.    This  was  conducted  from  May  2016  to  September  2016  and  looked 
into key EU directives in the area of consumer rights and advertising, including: 

•  Directive  93/13/EEC  on  unfair  terms  in  consumer  contracts  (Unfair  Contract  Terms 

Directive); 

•  Directive  1999/44/EC  on  certain  aspects  of  the  sale  of  consumer  goods  and 

associated guarantees (Sales and Guarantees Directive); 

•  Directive  2005/29/EC  concerning  unfair  business-to-consumer  commercial  practices 

in the internal market (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive);  

•  Directive 98/6/EC on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products 

offered to consumers (Price Indication Directive);  

•  Directive  2006/114/EC  concerning  misleading  and  comparative  advertising 

(Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive); and 

•  Directive  2009/22/EC  on  injunctions  for  the  protection  of  consumers'  interests 

(Injunctions Directive).  

This  consultation  also  covered  the  CRD.    A  total  of  436  responses  were  received  from 
stakeholders across the EU, as well as from non-EU countries.  

The  results  of  this  study  will  contribute  to  the  overall  Fitness  Check  above.    Similarly, 
responses  to  the  OPC  have  fed  into  this  study  on  the  evaluation  of  the  CRD 
implementation. 

Objectives of the study  

The  overall  objective  of  this  study  is  to  assess  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence, 
relevance, and EU added value of the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU).  

The  study  establishes  the  degree  to  which  the  objectives  of  the  Directive  have  been 
achieved, with respect to a high level of consumer protection and the contribution to the 
proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market.    This  involves  an  evaluation  of  the  legal  and 
economic  impacts  that  have  occurred  as  a  result  of  the  modifications  made  to  the  two 
predecessor Directives and the new rules introduced.  

1.2.1  Geographical scope 

This study covers the 28 MS of the European Union.   

To  investigate  some  aspects  in  greater  detail,  e.g.  future  changes  to  the  CRD,  specific 
problems with implementation, costs and benefits, among  others,  targeted consultation 
has also been undertaken on a sample of MS. These were chosen to ensure a high level 
of  representativeness  (according  to  geographical  coverage,  population  (i.e.  large  vs 
small  countries),  as  well  as  the  level  of  consumer  protection  that  existed  prior  to  the 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

adoption of the Directive) and, following agreement with the Commission, to match with 
the sample of countries used in other studies conducted for DG JUST.   

The final list of countries was agreed with the Commission at the kick-off meeting, and 
two  countries  (Bulgaria  and  Finland)  were  added  to  the  original  proposed  list;  the  final 
list of 18 MS chosen for targeted consultation are presented in Table 1-1.  

Table 1-1:  Targeted consultation countries 

Country  

Geographical location 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus 

Eastern Europe 

Southern Europe  

Czech Republic 

Eastern Europe  

Germany 

Western Europe  

Estonia 

Finland  

Greece 

France 

Ireland 

Baltic region  

Northern Europe 

Southern Europe 

Western Europe 

Western Europe 

10 

Italy 

Southern Europe 

11 

Lithuania 

Baltic region  

12 

Netherlands 

Western Europe 

13 

Poland 

Eastern Europe 

14 

Portugal 

Southern Europe 

15 

Romania 

Eastern Europe 

16 

Sweden 

Northern Europe  

17 

Slovakia 

Eastern Europe 

18 

United Kingdom 

Western Europe 

1.2.2 

Legislative scope 

This  study  focuses  on  Directive  2011/83/EU  and  the  legislative  acts  that  transpose  its 
provisions at the MS level. However, given the overall objective in terms of assessing the 
legal  and  economic  impacts  of  the  modified  and  new  rules  introduced  by  the  Directive, 
consideration is also given to the legislation that was in force at MS level before the new 
provisions of the Directive were transposed at the national level.   

3 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Finally,  in  order  to  assess  the  criterion  of  coherence,  other  related  Directives  (both 
horizontal and sectorial) have been included in the analysis.  

Approach and methodology of the study 

As noted above, the evaluation has covered all EU MS and focused on the impacts since 
the  Directive's  application  in  2014  focusing  on  the  different  CRD  provisions,  that  is, 
looking at the different articles of the CRD.   Impact on traders has been measured for 
both  large  companies  and  SMEs  but  also  by  sector  (as  the  Directive  distinguishes 
between goods, services and digital content). 

The approach to the  study consists  of both a literature  review based  on desk research, 
including  documents  on  the  legal  implementation  of  the  Directive  in  different  MS  and 
other relevant studies, as well as stakeholder consultation, by means of bespoke online 
surveys and a programme of interviews. More information on consultation activities can 
be found in the synopsis report (see Annex 4).  

The main sources of data for this evaluation are listed in Table 1-2.  

Table 1-2:  Research methods for data collection – Evaluation of the CRD 

Online  survey  -  online  surveys  were  carried  out  between  July-September  2016  and 
different  questionnaires  were  developed  for  consumers,  traders,  national  consumer  & 
trade associations, competent authorities and European Consumer Centres (ECCs).  

Stakeholders  were  asked  to  complete  the  survey  by  e-mail  and  invited  to  disseminate 
the  link.  Questionnaires  were  translated  into  16  official  languages  for  consumers  and 
traders. Support and additional information has been provided on request.  

Interview  programme  –  interviews  with  64  CRD  stakeholders  (e.g.  competent 
authorities,  ECCs,    EU  trade  associations  and  consumer  associations  ).    These  were 
invited  to  be  interviewed  when  submitting  their  online  survey  and  interview 
arrangements  were  followed  at  their  convenience.  Minutes  of  the  interviews  have  been 
taken and confidentiality concerns addressed.   

Desk  research  –  literature  from  the  EU  and  other  parallel  studies  were  examined 
including the Directive’s legal text and other literature available  online for assessing the 
implementation  of  the  CRD  in  the  different  MS.  Searches  were  conducted  in  the  official 
languages  of  the  EU  by  native  country  researchers  assigned  according  to  language 
capabilities.  A  number  of  parallel  studies  have  provided  useful  information  to  this 
evaluation.  In  particular,  the  results  from  the  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  of  the 
Consumer  and  Marketing  Law  Fitness  Check  and  the  consumer  summit;  an  evaluation 
report  by  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  Report  (EESC)  on  the  CRD;  a 
mystery  shopping  exercise  and  a  behavioural  experiment  carried  out  within  the 
Consumer and Marketing Law Fitness Check.  An EU-wide sweep was also conducted in 
2015, the results of which have fed into the CRD evaluation. 

The study approach is depicted in Figure 1-2. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 1-2: Study approach 

The  evidence  was  processed  according  to  the  following  typology  in  ascending  order  of 
reliability: 

1.  Messages  communicated  from  stakeholders  but  unsupported  by  desk-research: 
obviously  some  traders  have  been  keen  to  emphasize  the  costs  and  problems  with 
the  interpretation  of  the  CRD  but  sometimes  their  views  are  not  supported  by  the 
consultant's  interpretation  of  the  provisions  and  other  available  literature  (refer  for 
instance  to  the  discussion  on  the  impacts  of  the  CRD's  regulatory  choices  as 
described  by  traders  in  some  countries  when  the  regulatory  choices  have  not  been 
used). 

2.  Messages  communicated  from  stakeholders  and  supported  by  desk-research.  In 
particular  messages  that  have  been  found  to  be  grounded  and  supported  by  other 
literature  (mystery  shopping,  behavioural  study  and  other  studies  described  below) 
have been given greater weight (e.g. discussion on level of consumers' awareness).  

3.  Independent  Systematic  Review of  at  least  the  majority  of  relevant  evidence, 

including primary and secondary sources of data as well as experts' opinions.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Care has been taken however to interpret the evidence based on the following: 

• 

Internal validity of the evidence: i.e. its precision and reliability. Less weight is given 
to opinions, but when these have been shared by different stakeholders, these have 
been  given  greater  weight  (also  when  these  have  been  expressed  by  organisations 
representing  the  interest  of  more  than  an  individual  consumer  and  trader).  Most 
opinions have been summarised and referred to in grey boxes throughout the report, 
even though they may not have influenced the overall assessment of each judgement 
criterion.  

•  Sample  size  and  representativeness,  including  geographical  scale:   Particular  care 
has  been  taken  to  note  where  a  case  or  example  is  illustrative,  or  where  it  is 
representative of many cases in many countries. In particular, some issues with the 
CRD and interpretation of its articles have been identified that have the potential to 
be  repeated  in  more  than  one  country by  setting  a  precedent.  These  have  been 
included as relevant points in the assessment (e.g. refer to the discussion on return 
of used products, water utilities and inertia selling and  online bidding platforms and 
exceptions from RoW) 

•  Temporal relevance. The evidence on the impacts represent the period since the CRD 
implementation,  i.e.  2014,  but  in  comparison  with  the  previous  regulatory  regime. 
The  study  has  thus  focused  on  the  specific  provisions  of  the  Directive  that  are  new 
(with reference to specific articles).   

• 

Independence  of  source:  although  there  are  obvious  different  points  of  view  from 
consumers  and  traders  and  their  associations,  the  most  balanced  arguments  have 
been presented and attempting to avoid extreme bias.  

The different sources of information are described in the sub-sections below. 

1.3.1  Online survey (task 1) 

The online survey targeted the following types of stakeholders: 

• 

• 

Individual consumers; 

Individual traders;  

•  National consumer associations;  

•  National trade associations;  

•  National  enforcement  authorities  and  responsible  ministries  (National  Competent 

Authorities); and  

•  European Consumer Centres (ECCs). 

The development of questionnaires was necessary to collect useful information to answer 
the  evaluation  questions  of  this  study  (relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  coherence 
and  EU  added  value).    All  the  questionnaires  had  a  concluding  question  asking  if  the 
respondent  would  be  willing  to  be  interviewed  as  part  of  this  study  (see  Task  2). 
Different  questionnaires  were  developed  for  each  stakeholder  group.    These  were 
translated into the different official languages for the individual consumers and traders. 

Contacts were derived from both the Commission’s database as well as the consultants’ 
own  database  of  contacts  from  previous  studies;  additional  channels  used  to  contact 
relevant MS authorities included the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network. In 
a  few  cases,  both  roles  (of  implementation  and  enforcement)  are  undertaken  by  one 
single organisation.    

6 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

ECCs  were  contacted  both  directly  and  through  the  ECC-Network.    The  rationale  for 
including  the  ECCs  was  that  they  would  have  a  good  overview  of  the  problems  that 
consumers face when trading cross-border.  Thus, they could provide useful information 
on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive  in  terms  of  increasing  consumer  trust  when 
shopping elsewhere than in domestic markets.  

The  MS  authorities  and  ECCs  were  targeted  in  all  28  MS.    The  survey  for  the  other 
groups of stakeholders focused on a final list of 18 MS to investigate specific aspects in 
greater  depth.    The  number  of  people  contacted  is  set  out  in  Table  1-3  (grey  shading 
indicates  the  18  countries  selected).      After  enquiries  from  other  MS  stakeholders, 
stakeholders  not  included  in  the  selected  18  countries  were  also  invited  to  fill  in  the 
survey.  

Table 1-3: Numbers contacted per MS and stakeholder type 

Member 
State 

MSA* 
contacts  

ECC 
contacts  

Trade 
association 
contacts  

Consumer 
association 
contacts  

Total 
number 
contacted 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Lithuania 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

4 

0 

3 

6 

0 

7 

8 

7 

13 

7 

0 

7 

8 

0 

0 

6 

1 

0 

8 

0 

3 

5 

0 

5 

5 

9 

5 

37 

0 

2 

7 

0 

0 

10 

3 

2 

14 

2 

9 

14 

3 

16 

20 

18 

20 

46 

3 

12 

19 

3 

1 

20 

7 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Member 
State 

MSA* 
contacts  

ECC 
contacts  

Trade 
association 
contacts  

Consumer 
association 
contacts  

Total 
number 
contacted 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

1 

3 

0 

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

11 

1 

5 

*MSA – Member State authorities 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

5 

0 

8 

0 

10 

9 

3 

5 

0 

0 

6 

7 

1 

2 

1 

4 

8 

1 

23 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

14 

2 

18 

24 

6 

30 

2 

12 

12 

18 

In  terms  of  hosting  the  online  questionnaire,  it  was  agreed  with  the  Commission  that 
study would use Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com).  Access to the questionnaire 
for most stakeholders  was via RPA’s website,  with a webpage developed specifically for 
this purpose:  http://rpaltd.co.uk/consumer_rights_directive. 

The  consultation  opened  on  7th  July  2016.    Consultees  were  emailed  and  invited  to 
forward  the  link  to  the  survey  on  to  other  stakeholders  known  to  them  (e.g.  trade 
associations  to  their  members).  Five  reminders  were  sent  throughout  the  summer  (see 
Table  1-4).    Owing  to  the  limited  number  of  responses  during  the  summer  period  and 
following  weekly  monitoring  of  responses,  it  was  agreed  with  the  Commission  that  the 
survey deadline should be extended, as per the dates specified below.   

Table 1-4:  Dates emails were sent 

Email 

Date sent 

Initial email 

Either 07/07/16 or 12/07/16 

1st reminder 

2nd reminder 

3rd reminder 

19/07/16 

28/07/16 

10/08/16 

8 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Email 

4th reminder 

Date sent 

23/08/16 

5th reminder 

01/09/16 or 02/09/16 

Extension 
of 
survey duration 

16/09, 21/11 and 16/12 

Twitter 

In  addition  to  the  emails,  the 
study  disseminated  the  survey 
via  RPA’s 
account, 
Facebook  page  and  LinkedIn 
page,  with  the  Commission  re-
tweeting (see screenshot below).  
The Facebook post was promoted 
with  the  target  audience  set  to 
males  and  females  aged  18  to 
65+  across  the  18  EU  counties 
selected  in  this  study;  the  post 
was seen by 6,963 people.   

The  total  number  of  responses  are  summarised  below.  The  total  numbers  are  not 
dissimilar to those from the OPC on the consumer law and marketing acquis.  

Table 1-5: Responses received to online consultation 

Survey type 

Total 

Complete 

Yes to interview 

Consumer 

Traders 

Consumer associations 

Trade association 

ECCs 

Ministries 

Enforcement authorities 

358 

284 

61 

66 

54 

26 

36 

255 

157 

24 

25 

28 

16 

24 

53 

24 

10 

15 

16 

7 

9 

Grand totals 

885 

529 

134 

Notes:  Amongst National Competent Authorities, some are both ministries and 
enforcement authorities.  A complete survey is defined as one where the respondent has 
completed at least one of the last three or four questions (depending upon the 
questionnaire.) 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In summary: 

•  There  was  a  total  of  255  complete  responses  from  consumers;  Greece,  Cyprus  and 
the UK were the MS with the largest number  of  completed  responses. Retail outlets 
and  the  internet  are  the  preferred  methods  to  buy  by  consumers  and  the  latter  is 
more prominent for cross-border purchases Doorstep selling was not popular among 
respondents  with  nearly  90%  stating  that  they  had  never  purchased  goods  or 
services in this way so the impacts from the Directive on this group of buyers may be 
under-represented (on the other hand, doorstop selling is unlikely to be as popular as 
other types of selling); 

•  Representing  the  interests  of  consumers,  national  consumer  associations  were  also 
canvassed about the implementation of the CRD in their country.  There were a total 
of 24 complete responses to the survey; 

•  A total of 157 complete responses was received from traders. Most of the companies 
responding  to  the  survey  were  SMEs  (58.8%  of  the  total)  and  51.6%  sell  cross-
border (the vast majority through e-commerce). By type of contract: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

75% of traders sell goods; 

37% provide services;  

8% provide digital content; and  

8% provide free-online services.   

•  There was a total of 25 complete responses from trade associations of which: 

- 

- 

- 

89% represent traders selling goods; 

68% represent traders selling services; and 

50% represent traders providing digital content both paid and free. 

•  There  were  24  completed  responses  from  enforcement  authorities  and  16  from 

ministries; and 

•  28 ECCs responded to the survey2. 

The summary statistics are given in Annex 2. The results of the online survey have been 
used to assist with both the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the CRD evaluation 
(for  all  criteria).  To  maximise  the  value  of  responses  to  the  questionnaire,  the  detailed 
analysis  of  responses  to  individual  questions  includes  responses  from  non-completed 
questionnaires. 

1.3.2  Stakeholder interviews (Task 2) 

The  aim  of  this  task  was  to  conduct  interviews  with  relevant  stakeholders  to  gather 
further insights into the application of the CRD and the associated outcomes and costs.  

The majority of interviews were conducted by telephone, with a small number conducted 
face-to-face.    In  addition,  interviews  were  also  undertaken  with  EU-wide  associations 
(including trade and consumer associations).  Interview minutes were prepared and sent 
to the stakeholders to check and approve before use.   

The  evaluation  team  used  a  semi-structured  interview  approach  that  provided  a  set  of 
questions to be tackled during the interview while allowing the interviewer to ask follow-

2 For one country, more than one person answered from the same organisation and in another two responses 

were received but is uncertain whether they are from the same organisation. 

10 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

up questions. That approach enabled the evaluation team to obtain the largest possible 
volume of information during each interview.  

The  set  of  questions  was  tailored  to  each  interviewee  based  on  their  response  to  the 
online survey. The use of tailored interview guidelines ensured that information provided 
was  specific  to  each  stakeholder  group.    Any  issues  requiring  clarification  from  the 
survey responses were sought, as well as feedback on the survey.  Other areas covered 
in the tailored interview guidelines included their views on:  

•  The  implementation  of  the  CRD  in  their  country,  including  the  costs,  practical 
problems,  benefits,  and  coherence  with  other  EU  (and  any  additional  national) 
consumer legislation (national enforcement authorities and responsible ministries); 

•  How it compares with experiences under the previous regulatory regime;  

•  Problems  encountered  in  respect  of  administrative  procedures  in  implementing  the 

CRD; and 

•  Any issues relating to enforcement and levels of compliance. 

In  addition  to  these  areas,  interviewees  were  asked  about  their  opinions  on 
future/further actions in relation to the CRD, including: 

•  Should  the  scope  of  the  Directive  be  expanded  to  include  the  provision  of  service 
contracts where the services are provided for free in exchange for personal data?  

•  Should  information  requirements  include  information  on  criteria  for  ranking  search 

results (on online platforms) when conducting online shopping?  

•  Would it be helpful to provide traders with a model form using icons to display pre-
contractual information (binding or non-binding model form containing icons)? Would 
this help consumers? For traders, what would be the costs or benefits? 

•  Are there any new/additional consumer issues that need to be addressed through the 

Directive that are not already explicitly addressed? 

A  total  of  64  interviews  were  held;  the  following  table  summarises  the  interviews 
conducted by type of stakeholder. 

Table 1-6:  Number interviews held 

Member 
State 

MSA   ECC 

Trade 
Associatio
ns 

Consumer  
Associatio
ns 

Consum
ers 

Traders  Total 

Bulgaria 

1 

1 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

0 

2 

1 

3 

1 

3 

2 

5 

11 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MSA   ECC 

Trade 
Associatio
ns 

Consumer  
Associatio
ns 

Consum
ers 

Traders  Total 

Member 
State 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

EU level 

1 

0 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

Total 

18 

9 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

14 

22 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

11 

1 

3 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

7 

3 

14 

64 

1 

1 

1 

3 

1.3.3  Analysis of complaint data (Task 3) 

The  aim  of  this  Task  is  to  assess  the  impact  of  the  CRD  on  consumer  complaints,  and 
eventually on the degree of legal certainty that the new Directive has introduced. 

The  analysis  of  complaints  data  is  based  on  data  provided  by  the  Commission  and 
related  to  the  ECC-Net  database.  It  should  be  emphasised  that  the  ECC-Net  database 
includes  only  cross-border  cases  and  thus  may  underestimate  the  level  of  complaints.  
To account for this, the online survey also asked the national competent authorities and 
consumer  associations  for  the  number  of  complaints  as  well  as  the  nature  of  these 
complaints.  Although  the  amount  of  quantitative  data  was  limited,  any  information 
provided  that  was  provided  is  given  below  (refer  to  Section  3).  This  information  is 
triangulated  with  that  of  the  ECC-Net  database.  In  consultation  with  the  EC  project 
manager  for  the  ECC-Net  database  it  became  clear  however  that  this  should  be 
interpreted with caution, owing to the different definitions that still apply when recording 
the data. Further work is being undertaken by the ECC-Net and the Commission services 
in this regard.  

1.3.4  Analysis of enforcement decisions, information mapping and Impact of awareness 

campaign (Task 4) 

Task  4  required  the  contractor  to  collect  and  analyse  data  and  information  on 
enforcement  procedures  relating  to  the  implementation  of  the  CRD  since  it  came  into 
effect  in  June  2014.  In  addition,  it  required  data  collection  and  analysis  in  relation  to 
mapping  of  current  information  efforts  by  national  consumer  enforcement  authorities 

12 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

and  data  collection  and  analysis  in  relation  to  assessing  the  impacts  of  the  European 
Commission’s awareness-raising campaign. 

The  analysis  of  enforcement  decisions  involved  a  qualitative  analysis  of  the  cases 
identified and a quantitative assessment of the number of legal cases by country and by 
Article/ sub-Article. In addition to desk research and input from the legal experts on the 
team,  the  recently  updated  European  Consumer  Law  Database3,  undertaken  by  DLA 
Piper  on  behalf  of  DG  JUST,  has  been  used  to  complement  the  analysis.  It  should  be 
emphasised that the mapping of legal cases is non-exhaustive, since whilst some cases 
may  be  included  in  national  legal  databases,  there  may  be  difficulties  in  accessing 
judicial and administrative court decisions at every level of the judicial system, including 
lower  level  courts,  since  not  all  court  cases  are  published,  or  made  easily  accessible 
through databases.   

The  online  survey  also  asked  about  pre-enforcement  actions  (such  as  enforcement 
bodies writing initial warning letters to alert traders to possible breaches of the CRD) and 
non-regulatory  mechanisms  such  as  information  campaigns  conducted  by  the  national 
authorities  and  aimed  at  strengthening  compliance  with  the  CRD.    This  has  been  the 
main  source  to  map  the  current  information  efforts  in  addition  to  the  interview 
programme.  

The  Consumer  Rights  Awareness  Campaign  organised  by  the  European  Commission, 
which  ran  between  March  2014  and  March  2016,  aimed  to  increase  general  knowledge 
amongst  traders  and  consumers  about  EU-wide  consumer  rights,  stemming  from  the 
transposition of EU directives into national law.  There was a particular focus on the CRD 
but  other  Directives  were  also  covered,  including  the  UCPD,  the  Unfair  Contract  Terms 
Directive and the Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive4.   

EU consumer rights awareness campaign in 14 EU Member States 

The  campaign  was  intended  to  increase  awareness  and  understanding  of  consumer 
rights with a call to action to find out more from EUROPA+.   

The campaign focused on consumers and traders identified as those in greatest need:  

•  Consumers aged 15-24 and those aged 60+; and 

•  Small companies, particularly micro-SMEs.  

There were four main goals: 

1.  Increase  general  awareness  among  consumers  and  traders  about  the  existence  of 

EU-wide consumer rights; 

2.  Transmit information about specific rights and obligations that they have, what these 

mean in practice and how to exercise them; 

3.  Raise awareness of the provision of EU legal instruments and Directives (in particular 

the Directive on Consumer Rights (CRD); and 

4.  Direct target groups to the youreurope.eu section on EUROPA.  

The overarching message of the campaign was: “the EU empowers consumers”, with 
detailed messages tailored to the two target groups, as depicted below:  

3   The update was commissioned in 2016 but covers 10 Directives and not just the CRD. 
4   See  European  Commission  webpage  on  Consumer  Rights  Awareness  Campaign,  available  at:  

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/consumer-marketing/events/140317_en.htm  

13 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Consumers 

Traders 

You  have  the  right  to  return  goods  purchased 
online within 14 days (Art. 9 CRD) 

Respect  your  consumers' 
customers will come back for more 

rights,  your 

You have the right to truthful advertising 

You  have  the  right  to  have  defective  goods 
repaired or replaced for free 

You  have  the  right  to  contracts  without  unfair 
clauses 

You  have  the  right  to  free  assistance  by 
European Consumer Centres 

An  evaluation  of  the  EC  awareness  campaign  was  conducted  in  20165.  The  evaluation 
conducted  an  in-depth  analysis  of  monitoring  data.  This  was  supplemented  with 
additional  data  and  evidence  gathered  through  a  representative  omnibus  survey, 
interviews, a case study focussing on the implementation of the campaign in four target 
countries  and  a  benchmarking  report  which  compared  the  campaign  with  campaigns 
sharing  similar  characteristics.  The  evaluation  findings  have  then  been  triangulated 
taking into account the primary data collected from the surveys and interviews as to the 
reasons  for  explaining  the  effectiveness  of  the  CRD  and  its  provisions  (with  particular 
regard to the level of awareness of consumers and traders). 

1.3.5  The mystery shopping exercise (Task 5) 

A mystery shopping exercise is generally aimed at replicating as closely as possible real 
consumers’  experiences.    The  mystery  shopping  exercise  conducted  by  GfK  aimed  to 
assess the level of compliance of traders with specific rules of the CRD.  It covered eight 
MS,  namely:  Bulgaria,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Netherlands,  Poland,  and 
Portugal.   

The  study  focused  on  real  consumers’  experiences  when  purchasing  online  goods  or 
digital content, in particular the purchase of four different items was tested: a computer 
mouse, a memory stick, security software, and music downloads.  The specific provisions 
of the CRD covered under the exercise included: 

•  Pre-contractual information requirements;  

•  Formal requirements for distance contract (in particular Art. 8(2) and 8(3));   

•  Ban on extra fees for the use of means of payment; 

•  Ban to use pre-ticked boxes to infer the consumer’s consent with regard to additional 

payments; and  

•  Consumers’ Right of Withdrawal (RoW). 

The  findings  of  the  mystery  shopping  study  have  been  included  in  the  section  on 
effectiveness and factors affecting this, such as lack of compliance.  

1.3.6  The behavioural experiment (Task 6) 

A behavioural experiment was also commissioned in 2016. Experiment 4 focused on the 
CRD in relation to pre-contractual information and the RoW. 

5 Coffey & Deloitte (2016): Evaluation of the 2014-16 consumer rights awareness campaign in 14 EU Member 

States Final report, November 2016 

14 

 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Behavioural Experiment 4 on the CRD 

Behavioural  experiments  are  a  method  that  can  be  used  in  the  policy  and  market 
analysis.    During  such  an  experiment,  actual  behaviour  of  a  consumer  is  observed  in 
simplified settings that mirror the key features of the market. 

In particular, Experiment 4 aimed to answer the following research questions:  

•  Are the information units in the CRD comprehensible and relevant to consumers?  
•  Do consumers use this information?  
•  Finally,  do  consumers  consider  (some)  information  requirements  in  the  UCPD  as 

redundant as they are also provided under the CRD? 

The  behavioural  experiment  on  the  CRD  included  both  goods  and  digital  content,  in 
particular  smartphones  and  streaming  content.  The  results  have  been  included  in  the 
assessment  of  effectiveness  but  also  in  the  future  recommendations  as  it  included 
aspects such as the use of icons for pre-contractual information.  

1.3.7  Open public consultation for the Fitness Check of EU consumer and marketing law 

(Task 7) 

In addition to the 436 survey responses to the OPC, 56 position papers were provided to 
and subsequently reviewed by the study team.  Each paper was assessed for information 
relating  to  the  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  added  value  and  relevance  of  the 
CRD,  as  well  as  for  opinions  and  comments  on  the  individual  provisions  (including  the 
regulatory choices).  Several papers presented general opinions on the Fitness Check of 
EU  Consumer  and  Marketing  legislation,  whilst  a  few  included  full  responses  to  each 
question  posed  by  the  open  public  consultation.    Although  some  papers  only  included 
comments  on  the  six  directives  within  the  Fitness  Check6,  the  majority  incorporated 
opinions on the CRD as well.  In order to conduct the analysis, we used NVivo software.  

NVivo  is  software  that  supports  qualitative  and  mixed  methods  research.  It  is  designed 
to  help  organise,  analyse  and  find  insights  in  unstructured  or  qualitative  data,  like 
position papers. 

Position papers relevant to the CRD that were received in English, or for which there was 
an  English  translation,  were  uploaded  to  NVivo  for  analysis.    Once  uploaded  into  the 
software, the top 50 most frequent words (exact matches) were generated using NVivo, 
in order to obtain the most frequent themes.   The initial list generated by the software 
contained many  words  that were  either too general and did not indicate a theme, such 
as  ‘consumer’  and  ‘directive’,  or  that  related  to  themes  outside  the  scope  of  this  study 
(e.g.  ‘marketing’,  ‘advertising’).    This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  position 
papers  contain  information  on  several  different  directives.    Some  words  were  thus 
removed  by  adding  them  to  the  NVivo  ‘stop  list’.    These  included  words  that  were 
considered to be too general or outside the scope, such as:  

•  Consumers (too general) 
•  Directive (too general) 
•  Law (too general) 
•  Rules (too general) 

•  Rights (too general) 
•  Commercial 

– 
(outside 
majority  of  comments  relate  to 
UCPD) 

scope 

6   These  include  the  Unfair  Contract  Terms  Directive  93/13/EEC;  Consumer  Sales  and  Guarantees  Directive 

1999/44/EC;        Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  2005/29/EC;  Price  Indication  Directive  98/6/EC;    
Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive 2006/114/EC; and Injunctions Directive 2009/22/EC (see 
Review 
at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/review/index_en.htm on 28th November 2016. 

Consumer 

accessed 

(Fitness 

Check), 

law 

EU 

of 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

•  Regulation (too general) 
•  European (too general) 
•  Marketing (outside scope) 
•  Advertising (outside scope) 
•  Services  (outside  scope  –  majority 
of  comments  related  to  Distance 
marketing  of  Financial  Service 
Directive)  

•  Unfair  (outside  scope  –  majority  of 

comments relate to UCPD) 

•  Terms  (outside  scope  –  majority  of 
comments  relate  to  Unfair  Contract 
Terms) 

•  Products (too general) 
•  Goods (too general) 
•  Customer (too general) 
•  Legislation (too general) 
•  Regulatory (too general) 
•  New (too general) 

Using the ‘word tree’ function of NVivo, it was then possible to explore the use of these 
most  frequently  used  words  in  context,  and  furthermore  to  explore  sub  trees  which 
identify particular issues   

The  information  from  the  OPC  has  supported  the  evaluation  of  the  CRD  with  particular 
regard  to  aspects  of  coherence  but  also  to  gain  a  further  understanding  of  the  main 
issues faced by stakeholders by analysing qualitatively their position papers.  

1.3.8  Analysis of the sweep (Task 9) 

2015 CRD Sweep 

The  "EU  sweep"  is  an  EU-wide  screening  of  websites.    It  is  conducted  in  a  form  of 
simultaneous,  coordinated  checks  to  identify  breaches  of  consumer  law  and  to 
subsequently ensure its enforcement.   

The  latest  sweep  conducted  in  2015  focused  on  the  quality  of  pre-contractual 
information available to consumers online before making a purchase, as regulated by the 
CRD.   EU MS authorities checked 743 websites making it the largest sweep conducted at 
EU-level so far. Among these websites, there was a full spectrum of traders ranging from 
smaller players to big e-commerce platforms. 

Information from the sweep has been used to assess the estimated level of compliance 
by traders and thus the effectiveness of the CRD as non-compliance is a reason for lack 
of effectiveness.  

1.3.9  Other sources of information 

Other  sources  of  information  include  the  information  collected  during  the  European 
Consumer Summit held on the 17 October 2016 and the report issued by the European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  on  the  CRD.  The  finding  of  this  evaluation  has 
been  particularly  useful  for  the  criteria  of  effectiveness  and  relevance  and  in  order  to 
triangulate the findings of this study.  

European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) evaluation of the CRD 

in  the 

During  2016,  the  EESC  evaluated  the  perception  and  experience  of  EU  civil  society 
organisations  (CSO) 
implementation  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive 
(2011/83/EU). In particular, it gathered information and proposed solutions based on the 
result  of  a  questionnaire,  five  fact-finding  missions  (Riga,  Rome,  Warsaw,  Madrid  and 
Brussels)  and  an  Expert  Hearing.  Secondary  data  collection  drew  on  the  EESC's  past 
work on the subject, such as EESC opinions, reports of conferences, missions and public 
hearings. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The EESC carried out an evaluation analysis based on:  

•  Awareness and perception 

• 

Implementation 

•  Scope of the Directive 

• 

Impact of the Directive 

In particular: 

•  The  questionnaire  asked  civil  society  organisations  about  how  they  perceive  and 
experience  the  implementation  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive.  The  questionnaire 
was  created  using  the  EU  Survey  online  portal  and  consisted  of  a  mix  of  question 
formats  (filter  questions,  closed,  open-ended,  grid  and  most-significant-change 
method).  The  consultation  on  the  questionnaire  was  open  during  the  first  half  of 
September  2016.  The  total  number  of  civil  society  organisations  that  replied  to  the 
questionnaire is 54. 

•  The  fact-finding  missions  included  semi-structured  interviews  with  local  civil  society 

organisations, largely following the structure of the questionnaire. 

•  The  expert  hearing  was  organised  at  the  EESC  in  Brussels  on  14  September. 
Participants included the members of the EESC study group and experts representing 
the organisations of employers, employees and various interests (including consumer 
organisations), as well as national regulators and academia. 

The  2016  Consumer  Market  Scoreboard  has  also  been  used  to  support  some  of  the 
analysis in this evaluation. 

2016 Consumer Market Scoreboard 

The  Consumer  Scoreboards  monitor  how  the  single  market  is  performing  for  EU 
consumers  and  signal  potential  problems.  Published  since  2008,  they  aim  to  ensure 
better monitoring of consumer outcomes and provide evidence to inform policy.  

Scoreboard  findings  are  used  by  national  policymakers  and  stakeholders  to  assess  the 
impact  of  their  activities  over  time  and  benchmark  the  situation  against  other  MS. 
Scoreboards  also  serve  as  a  key  reference  for  evaluations  and  impact  assessments  for 
policy development and orientations, including in the context of the European Semester.  

There are two types of Scoreboards, published in alternate years: 

•  The Consumer Conditions Scoreboard monitors national conditions for consumers in 3 
dimensions  (knowledge  and  trust,  compliance  and  enforcement,  complaints  and 
dispute resolution) and examines progress in the integration of the EU retail market 
based  on  the  level  of  business-to-consumer  cross-border  transactions  and  the 
development of e-commerce. 

•  The  Consumer  Markets  Scoreboard  surveys  consumers  with  recent  purchasing 
experiences to track the performance of over 40 consumer markets on key indicators 
such as trust that sellers respect consumer protection rules, comparability of offers, 
the  choice  available  in  the  market,  the  extent  to  which  consumer  expectations  are 
met,  and  detriment  caused  by  problems  that  consumers  encounter.  Other  relevant 
indicators are also monitored and analysed, such as switching and prices. 

17 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Limitations of the findings 

Although the statistics suggest an increase in online shopping over the last few years, it 
is too early to establish causality between this and the CRD. In other words, it is difficult 
to establish with accuracy the impacts that the CRD might have had on the behaviour of 
market  actors  since  the  Directive  was  only  required  to  be  transposed  by  13  December 
2013 and became applicable in all EU Member States from 13 June 2014. Moreover, such 
an indicator is only a proxy for the impact of the CRD, rather than a direct impact, since 
there are methodological difficulties in establishing attribution. The increase in sales may 
be  due  to  other  factors  such  as  the  economic  recovery  since  the  2008  economic  crisis 
and  not  just  linked  to  a  perceived  increase  in  consumer  protection  and  the  removal  of 
differences  in  consumer  legislation  from  a  full  harmonisation  Directive.  It  will  in  future 
continue  to  be  difficult  to  establish  direct  attribution,  given  that  extraneous  factors 
influence  consumer  shopping  volumes  and  trends,  although  perception-based  surveys, 
supported  by  qualitative  interviews,  can  help  to  overcome  such  methodological 
challenges. 

Despite the survey and interview programme  containing questions on the costs and the 
benefits, it has been difficult to gather quantitative data on the impacts of the CRD (and 
it appears that these data are not available to stakeholders consulted). Available data on 
the CRD benefits, costs and impacts have been found to be sparse. The analysis is thus 
more  qualitative  in  nature  and  is  mainly  limited  to  highlighting  the  issues  with 
implementation  and  interpretation  of  key  provisions,  including  the  barriers  to  an 
effective application, rather than on benefits and impacts on general objectives.  

Key limitations of the study 

Stakeholders  could  not  provide  quantitative  estimations  on  the  impacts  of  the  CRD  as 
they  could  not  establish  causality  between  increase  in  sales  and  CRD,  on  the  side  of 
benefits; yet, some examples of costs related to specific provisions have been provided 
(and given in Section 4). 

The  literature  review  has  been  sparse  on  the  costs  and  benefits  due  to  the  short  time 
since the Directive has been transposed (in addition MS have only got a requirement to 
report on the regulatory choices under Art. 29).  

The only source of estimates is the Impact assessment (IA). The earlier IA estimated the 
administrative burden to distance  sellers according to the number of  MS they traded in 
and the different regulatory requirements. This however did not distinguish between the 
different MS and an overhead figure applied to the total number of companies engaged 
in cross-border selling.  

Another  limitation  to  the  study  is  that  the  level  of  response  to  the  online  survey  from 
traders and consumers has been rather low, despite reminders and engagement through 
social media. One may attribute this to the time in the year when the consultation was 
launched (during the summer time) but equally to stakeholders’ fatigue, as other studies 
on  consumer  protection  have  been  conducted  nearly  simultaneously  with  the  same  or 
similar  target  groups.    To  compensate  for  this,  additional  data  was  collected  through 
interviews with trade associations and other stakeholders but only from those willing to 
participate.  This  may,  in  turn,  provide  more  weight  to  their  arguments  versus  others’ 
that remained indifferent so their views may be over-represented in the study findings.  

In  order  to  remedy  the  above  limitations  with  collecting  necessary  data,  data 
triangulation  has  been  carried  out  across  the  long  list  of  different  sources  and  relevant 
studies  (as  reviewed  above).  The  team  also  took  part  in  the  Consumer  Summit, 
presenting  the  study  to  stakeholders,  in  order  to  gain  their  buy-in  and  publicise  the 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

study. Most of the findings across the relevant literature seem to coincide with very few 
exceptions and these exceptions are presented in the remainder of this report.   It is not 
believed that these hinder the importance of the study findings.  

Notwithstanding these limitations, the evaluation is based on a review of best available 
qualitative  evidence  of  causality  between  actions  and  effected  changes.  It  has  made 
extensive  use  of  stakeholders'  and  experts'  view  on  the  functioning  of  the  different 
provisions  of  the  Directives  and  has  been  able  to  flag  some  of  the  more  significant 
impacts on traders and consumers to date with relevance to specific provisions.  

Structure of this report 

The remainder of this Report has been organised as follows: 

•  Section 2:  The CRD and its implementation in MS; 

•  Section 3:  Evaluation of CRD and its Effectiveness; 

•  Section 4:  Evaluation of CRD and its Efficiency; 

•  Section 5:  Evaluation of CRD and its Coherence; 

•  Section 6:  Evaluation of CRD and its Relevance;  

•  Section 7:  Evaluation of CRD and its EU Added Value; and 

•  Section 8:  Summary of findings and recommendations 

19 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

2  The CRD and its implementation in Member States 

Overview of Section 

The  EC’s  2008  Impact  Assessment  supporting  the  proposal  of  the  Directive  noted  that 
consumers  were  not  reaping  the  benefits  of  a  fully  integrated  retail  market  with 
increased  choice  and  lower  prices7  (CEC,  2008).    The  main  reason  for  this  was  the 
fragmentation  of  the  national  laws  regulating  consumer  transactions,  which,  in  turn, 
increased  reluctance  by  businesses  to  sell  cross-border  to  consumers  and  lowered 
consumer confidence in shopping cross-border. 

Directive 2011/83 aims to support the development of the business-to-consumer (B2C) 
internal market, whilst providing a high level of consumer protection by addressing legal 
fragmentation and the related uneven level of consumer protection across the EU.    

This Section presents the summary of the legal mapping of the different provisions of the 
Directive.  In order to identify which provisions in the Directive are new, a comparative 
assessment  was  carried  out  between  the  legal  text  of  the  CRD  (2011/83/EC)  and  its 
predecessors,  i.e.  Directive  97/7/EC  on  the  protection  of  consumers  in  respect  of 
distance  contracts  and  Directive  85/577/EEC  in  respect  of  contracts  negotiated  away 
from  business  premises.  The  Commission’s  Roadmap  to  the  Evaluation  has  also  been 
used to focus on the key provisions of the CRD8.   

In  addition,  whilst  most  Articles  within  the  CRD  are  implemented  on  the  basis  of  a 
maximum harmonisation approach, there are a number of regulatory choices available to 
the MS on its implementation. Differences in regulatory choices as well as in enforcement 
arrangements and level of penalties across MS could compromise achieving the objectives 
of  reduced  fragmentation,  thus  affecting  the  CRD’s  effectiveness  overall.    This  section 
presents  a  summary  of  the  implementation  of  regulatory  choices  in  the  different  MS.    It 
also  provides  selected  examples  of  national  enforcement  approaches  and  civil, 
administrative and criminal penalty regimes. 

The following information sources have been used in assessing legal implementation and 
key changes: 

•  MS’ legal information portals; 

• 

• 

Information published on the website of DG Justice; 

Interviews with key national stakeholders to verify legal mapping information; 

•  Legal journals focusing on national legal implementation of the CRD; and  

•  Studies such as the Consumer Market Study on Legal and Commercial Guarantees. 

The  analysis  of  legal  aspects  relating  to  enforcement  has  made  use  of  the  following 
additional sources:  

•  Eur-Lex; and 

•  The  updated  EU  Consumer  Law  Database9  gathered  by  the  EC  contractor  who  is 
currently  building  the  Consumer  law  section  of  the  e-Justice  Portal.  In  addition, 
information on case-law related to the CRD has been gathered by the study team. 

7   CEC (2008): Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the proposal for a directive on consumer 

rights Impact Assessment Report, Health and Consumer Directorate-General, 2008. 

8    Available at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/documents/roadmap_of_the_crd_evaluation.pdf 
9   DLA  Piper  was  tasked  in  autumn  2016  with  updating  the  EU  Consumer  Law  Compendium  of  April  2007 

(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/cons_int/safe_shop/acquis/comp_analysis_en.pdf) .   

20 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Interviews  and  email-based  communication  with  national  level  stakeholders  have  also 
helped in the clarification of certain aspects of implementation at MS level.  

This  Section  is  focused  on  providing  factual  information  with  regard  to  implementation 
and the situation pre- and post-CRD.  Table 2-1 sets out the different legislative pieces 
that implement the CRD at MS level. The full country fiches are provided in Annex 1. It is 
important  to  note  that  in  some  cases  the  CRD  has  been  implemented  by  amending 
existing legislation. The dates of implementation in the table are then given in reference 
to such amendments.  

It should be noted that the evaluation questions are not addressed in this section but are 
covered in subsequent sections. 

Table 2-1:  Implementing legislation by MS 

Country 

Main implementing legislation 

Date of 
implementation 

Austria (AT) 

Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz (the 
“Austrian Act”) 

July 2014 

Belgium (BE) 

Book VI of the Economic Law Code on Market 
Practices and Consumer Protection (the “Book VI 
Act”) 

December 2013 

Bulgaria (BG) 

Consumer Protection Act of 25 July 2014  amending 
Consumer Protection Act of 10 June 2006 

July 2014 

Croatia (HR) 

Consumer Protection Act (CPA) NN 41/14 = Zakon o 
zaštiti potrošača (ZZP) 

March 2014 

Cyprus (CY) 

Czech 
Republic (CZ) 

The 2013 Law on Consumer Rights, Law 
133(Ι)/2013 

November 2013 

Act No. 89/2012 Coll. (i.e. Civil Code) 

January 2014 

Denmark (DK) 

Danish Consumer Rights Act ( Lov om 
forbrugeraftaler) 

Estonia (EE) 

Estonian Law of Obligations Act (the ‘ELOA’), and 
the Consumer Protection Act  

Finland (FI) 

Finnish Consumer Protection Act 

France (FR) 

French Law on Consumer Protection (Law no. 2014-
344) 

Germany (DE) 

Act Implementing the Consumer Rights Directive 
(CRD) and amending the law regulating the property 
agency (Gesetz zur Umsetzung der 
Verbraucherrechterichtlinie und zur Änderung des 
Gesetzes zur Regelung der Wohnungsvermittlung) 

December 2013 

January 2014 

June 2014 

February 2014 

June 2013 

Greece (EL) 

Joint Ministerial Decision No Ζ1-891/2013 amending 
Law Νo.2251/1994 on consumer protection 

June 2014 

Hungary (HU) 

Government Decree 45/2014 of 26 February 2014 
laying down detailed rules for contracts between 
consumers and undertakings 

February 2014 

Ireland (IE) 

European Union (Consumer Information, 
Cancellation and Other Rights) Regulations 2013 

December 2013 

21 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Main implementing legislation 

Date of 
implementation 

(S.I. No. 484 of 2013) (the “Irish Regulations”) 

Italy (IT) 

Legislative Decree No. 21/2014  

February 2014 

Latvia (LV) 

Consumer Rights Protection Law (“CRPL”) 

April 2014 

Lithuania (LT) 

Lithuanian Law on Consumer Protection (10 
November 1994, No. I-657)  

Luxembourg 
(LU) 

The Law of 2 April 2014 (amending the 2011 
Luxembourg Consumer Code) 

Malta (MT) 

Consumer Rights Regulations 2013 

The 
Netherlands 
(NL) 

Dutch Civil Code (as amended) 

June 2014 

April 2014 

June 2014 

June 2014 

Poland (PL) 

Act dated 30 May 2014 on Consumer Rights 

May 2014 

Portugal (PT) 

Law Decree n. 24/2014 (Decreto-Lei n. 24/2014, de 
14 de fevereiro) 

February 2014 

Romania (RO) 

Government Emergency Order No 34/2014 on 
consumer rights under contracts concluded with 
traders, and amending certain legislative acts 

Slovakia (SK) 

Act No. 102/2014 Coll. “On consumer protection in 
the sale of goods or provision of services under 
remote agreements or agreements executed outside 
business premises of the Seller” 

2014 

June 2014 

Slovenia (SI) 

Consumer Protection Act (Official Gazette of RS, No. 
98/2004, 126/2007, 86/2009, 78/2011, 38/2014) 

May 2014 

Spain (ES) 

Law 3/2014 of 27 March 2014 amending Royal 
Legislative Decree 1/2007 of 16 November 2007 

March 2014 

Sweden (SE) 

Swedish Consumer Sales Act (SFS 2014:11) 

January 2014 

The UK (UK) 

Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”) 

October 2015 

The key provisions from the Directive  

The key provisions of the CRD relate to the following: 

a.  The pre-contractual information requirements for on-premises contracts laid down 
by  Article  5(1)  in  conjunction  with  the  additional  pre-contractual  information 
requirements introduced by the Member States in line with Article 5(4); 

b.  The  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises 

contracts (Article 6(1)); 

c.  The specific provisions on digital content, such as (Art. 5(1)(g) and (h), Art. 6(1)(r) 

and (s), 8(7)(b), Art. 14(4)(b) and Art. 16(m)); 

d.  The  formal  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts  (Articles  7  and 

8); 

22 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

e.  The  fully  harmonised  period  for  the  right  of  withdrawal  for  distance  and  off-

premises contracts (Article 9); 

f.  The exceptions from the right of withdrawal (Article 16); 

g.  The new rules on delivery and passing of risk (Articles 18 and 20); 

h.  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation to contracts 

already concluded (Article 21); 

i.  The  requirement  to  eliminate  unjustified  surcharges  for  the  use  of  means  of 
payments  (Article  19).  Importantly,  this  provision  (along  with  Articles  8(2)  and 
22) applies also to the passenger transport services sector; 

j.  The  provision  banning  pre-ticked  boxes  (Article  22).  This  Article  foresees  the 
obligation  for  the  trader  to  seek  the  express  consent  of  the  consumer  to  any 
extra payment in addition to the remuneration agreed upon for the trader’s main 
contractual obligation; and 

k.  The provision on inertia selling (Article 27)  – the consumer is not obliged to pay 

for any unsolicited supply of goods, water, gas, electricity, district heating. 

A summary of the provisions of the CRD and the pre-existing regulatory situation in the 
EU is given in Table 2-2 with reference to the articles.  

23 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 2-2: Summary of provisions in the CRD 

Key provision 

Summary of current provisions in the CRD 

Comparison with previous situation prior to the CRD 

Pre-contractual 
information 
requirements 
for 
contracts (Arts. 5(1)) 
and Art.6(1))  

consumer 
Better 
protection  in  relation 
to  digital 
content 
(Art.  6(1)(r)  and  (s); 
Art.  5(1)(g)  and  (h); 
art. 
8(7)(b),Art. 14(4)(b), 
Art. 16(i) and (m)) 

Formal  requirements 
for  off-premises  (Art. 
distance 
and 
7) 
contracts (Art. 8) 

Right  of  withdrawal 
(RoW) (Article 9) 

information 

requirements 

the  pre-contractual 

Articles  5(1)  sets  out 
information 
requirements  for  on-premises  contracts  leaving  MS  free  to 
maintain  or  adopt  additional  requirements,  while  art.  6(1)  fully 
harmonises  pre-contractual 
for 
distance  and  off-premises  contracts.  Under  Article  6(6)  of  the 
CRD, if a trader  fails to inform consumers about any  additional 
applicable  charges,  they  do  not  have  to  pay  the  additional 
charge (Article 6(6))  
Articles  5  and  6  also  contain  pre-contractual  information 
requirements  on  digital  content  (regarding 
functionality, 
including  technical  protection  measures,  and  interoperability). 
Consumers  have  a  RoW  from  digital  content  contracts  unless 
the  performance  has  begun  with  prior  express  consent  and 
acknowledgment  that  he/she  loses  his  RoW  (Article  16(m)).  In 
case  of  digital  content  supplied  on  a  tangible  medium,  the 
consumer  loses  his  RoW  if  the  software,  audio  or  video 
recording has been unsealed (16(i)).  Art. 14(4)(b) provides for 
the consumer's right to use digital content for free if he/she has 
not  been  informed  in  advance  and  given  prior  express  consent 
in accordance with Art. 8(7)(b) and Art. 16(m)   
Traders are obliged to provide the consumer with a copy of the 
signed  contract  or  confirmation  on  paper  or  durable  medium. 
For  distance  contracts,  traders  need  to  make  the  consumer 
aware of an obligation to pay prior to the consumer placing the 
order  (Article  8(2)).  Article  8(3)  states  that  “Trading  websites 
shall indicate clearly and legibly at the latest at the beginning of 
the ordering process whether any delivery restrictions apply and 
which means of payment are accepted”  
The period during which consumers can withdraw from distance 
and  off-premises  contracts  is  fully  harmonised  EU-wide  to  14 
calendar days. The consumer is not required to give any reason 
for  exercising  his  or  her  right  of  withdrawal  within  this  14-day 
period.  The  burden  of  proof  of  having  withdrawn  within  the 
common 14 day time limit is on the consumer. 
Under Article 10, if the trader fails to provide information on the 
RoW,  this  shall  expire  12  months  from  the  end  of  the  initial 
withdrawal period 

information 

requirements  were 

not 
Pre-contractual 
harmonised  by  the  distance  and  door-to-door  selling 
directives  (Directive  97/7/EC  and  Directive  85/577/EEC) 
although there was a requirement that the trader inform the 
consumer  about  their  right  to  return  goods  to  the  supplier 
within a period of not less than seven days of receipt 

There  was  no  legislation  addressing  the  right  of  withdrawal 
and information about the characteristics of digital content 

There were no similar provisions under earlier EU legislation. 
Under  Directive  97/7/EC  on  distance  contracts,  there  were 
no provisions that specifically dealt with delivery restrictions.  
Only delivery costs and arrangements for delivery had to be 
specified under prior information requirements 

Under  Directive  85/577/EEC,  the  right  of  cancellation  was  a 
minimum of 7 days.   Directive 97/7/EC also included similar 
rules (Art. 6 - "… the consumer shall have a period of at least 
seven working days…without penalty and without giving any 
reason").  The  consequences  of  failure  to  inform  consumers 
about this were set by case law (“the Heininger case”): if the 
consumer was not informed, this right would be unlimited 

24 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Key provision 

Summary of current provisions in the CRD 

Comparison with previous situation prior to the CRD 

Introduction  of  an 
EU-wide 
model 
withdrawal form (Art. 
6 and 11) 

For  both  distance  and  off-premises  contracts,  consumers  have 
to  be  provided  with  a  model  withdrawal  form  (Art.  6  (h)).  An 
exemplar  is  set  out  in  an  annex  to  the  CRD,  which  consumers 
can (but are not obliged to) use, in line with Art. 11 

Obligations  of 
the 
trader in the event of 
withdrawal (Art 13) 

Delivery (Art. 18) 

Passing  on  risk  (Art. 
20). 

Traders must,  within  14  days of  consumer exercising the RoW, 
reimburse  all  payments  received  from  consumers  including  the 
cost  of  delivery  (Art.  13(1)).  However,  the  trader  can  withhold 
reimbursement until the moment he receives the goods back or 
when  the  consumer  has  supplied  evidence  of  having  sent  the 
goods back, whichever is the earliest (Art.13 (3))     
On the timing of the delivery of the goods, unless the trader and 
consumer  have  agreed  otherwise,  the  trader  must  deliver  the 
goods by transferring  physical  possession or control of them  to 
the consumer without  undue  delay, and  not  later  than 30 days 
from the conclusion of the contract (Article 18(1)) 
The  risk  passes  to  the  consumer  only  when  the  consumer 
acquires physical possession of the goods, unless the consumer 
has commissioned a carrier which was not offered by the trader 
(Article 20)   

Fees  for  the  use  of 
means  of  payment 
(Article 19) 

Art 19.  ensures that traders are not able to charge consumers 
more  for  paying  by  credit  card  (or  other  means)  than  what  it 
costs the trader to offer such means of payment. This provision 
also applies to the transport services sector  

by 
Communication 
telephone (Article 21) 

Additional  payments 
(Article 22) 

Inertia selling (Article 
27)    

This  article  ensures  that  consumers  are  not  charged  above  the 
basic  rate  when  contacting  the  trader  by  phone  once  the 
contract has been concluded  
This  article  provides  that  optional  extras  (requiring  additional 
payment)  which  are  often  offered  to  consumers  during  the 
online  purchase  process  can  no  longer  be  offered  through 
"default  options"  or  so-called  ‘pre-ticked’  boxes.  This  also 
applies  to  passenger  transport  services  (such  as  for  travel 
insurance or car rental) 
The consumer shall be exempted from the obligation to provide 
any consideration in cases of unsolicited supply of goods, water, 
gas,  electricity,  district  heating  or  digital  content  or  unsolicited 
provision of services  

Prior  to  the  CRD,  there  was  no  obligation  to  provide  a 
withdrawal  form.  There  were  also  different  practices  as  to 
whether written confirmation was required for the consumer 
to  exercise  their  RoW  and  whether  the  RoW  could  be 
exercised orally or had to be in writing 
The  effects  from  cancellation  were  governed  by  national 
laws,  particularly  regarding  the  reimbursement  of  payments 
and  the  return  of  goods  (no  harmonisation).    Prior  to  the 
CRD,  there  was  no  obligation  on  consumers  to  return  used 
goods within the cancellation period, and no provision for the 
trader to account for diminished value 

Previously,  goods  needed  to  be  delivered  within  the  time 
frame agreed with the seller.  If no time frame was agreed, 
the seller had  30 days  from  the  day after  they received the 
order to deliver the goods 

There were no rules relating to the passing of risk in the two 
predecessor laws. However, some MS had such provisions in 
national consumer law  

Under  Council  Directive  85/577/EEC  and  Directive  97/7/EC, 
there were no Articles concerning the means of payment and 
prohibiting excessive charges.  However, under the Payment 
Services  Directive  2007/64/EC,  which  has  recently  been 
updated,  EU  MS  may  voluntarily  prohibit  debit  /  credit  card 
charges altogether   

There was no equivalent EU legislation 

There  was  no  equivalent  in  Directive  97/7/EC  on  distance 
contracts  but  air  transport  specific  legislation  did  include  a 
similar prohibition (Article 23(1) of Regulation 1008/2008) 

legislation  exempting  consumers 

from 
There  was  no 
providing consideration in cases of inertia selling at European 
level  prior  to  the  CRD;  although  Directive  97/7/EC  (Art.  9)  
encouraged MS to take the measures necessary to avoid it  

25 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

As  it  can  be  seen  from  Table  2-2,  the  new  rules  have,  overall,  increased  the  level  of 
protection available to consumers on a wider range of contracts, with the new provisions 
covering  digital  content.  Consumers  are  entitled  to  receive  more  information  when 
conducting  their  shopping  than  previously,  thus  reducing information asymmetries.  The 
period  for  exercising  the  RoW  has  also  increased  and  the  obligations  and  effects  of 
withdrawal have been streamlined with reference to earlier EU legislation.  

It needs to be said that, in addition to the 35 articles of the CRD, the Directive contains 
a total of 67 recitals. The key provisions of the Directive need to be read in parallel with 
the Directive’s recitals which are complementary. Whilst some recitals  set out the wider 
policy  and  legislative  backdrop,  others  provide  more  detailed  explanation  as  to  the 
application  of  the  CRD  articles.  Table  2-3  sets  out  the  recitals  and  articles  where 
provisions are referenced and cross-referenced.   

Table 2-3: Key provisions -  reference and cross-reference in the CRD 

Key provision 

Recitals 

Relevant articles 

Definitions  

17,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24, 
25, 26, 60 

Art. 2 

Pre-contractual  information 
requirements  

9, 12, 34, 35, 36, 38 

Better  consumer  protection 
in relation to digital content  

19 

requirements 

Formal 
for 
off-premises  (and  distance 
contracts  

39 

Right of withdrawal (RoW)  

19, 37, 40 

Exercising 
withdrawal (RoW)  

the 

right  of 

44, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50. 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide 
model withdrawal form  

45 

Delivery  

Passing on risk  

Fees  for  the  use  of  means 
of payment  

51, 52 

53 

27, 54 

Communication 
telephone  

by 

- 

Additional payments  

38, 39 

Inertia selling     

Information  about  payment 
means  

60 

27, 38 

Art.  5(1),  Art.  6(1),  Art. 
6(6) and Art. 10 

Art.  6(1)(r)  and  (s);  Art. 
5(1)(g) 
(h),  Art. 
8(7)(b),  Art. 14(4)(b), Art. 
16(i) and (m) 

and 

Art. 7 and Art. 8 

Art.  9  and  Art.  16  (dealing 
with exemptions) 

Art. 11, Art. 12, Art. 13 and 
Art. 14 

Art. 6 and 11 

Art. 18 

Art. 20 

Art. 19 

Art. 21 

Art. 22 

Article 27 

Article 8.3 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In order to help stakeholders to interpret the different provisions outlined in the Articles 
of  the  CRD,  the  Commission  published  a  guidance  document10  concerning  the 
implementation of the  Directive in 2014.  As  with any non-binding guidance document, 
the guidance is not a formal interpretation of EU law, but provides practical illustrations 
of  ways  in  which  the  law  might  be  implemented.    The  survey  did  not  ask  directly  for 
views  on  the  usefulness  and  quality  of  the  interpretative  guidance.      However,  positive 
feedback  has  been  obtained  through  the  interviews  on  the  perceived  usefulness  and 
quality  of  guidance.    The  Guidance  includes  references  to  the  different  recitals  of  the 
Directive.  

A more detailed analysis of the implementation of the above provisions across MS, with 
detailed country fiches provided in Annex 1, has revealed the following: 

•  Prior  to  the  CRD,  in  almost  all  MS  consumers  were  not  protected  by  legislation 
specifically  concerning  digital  content.  The  only  exception  is  SK,  where  digital 
products to be delivered in a tangible medium11 (e.g. a DVD, a digital download on a 
memory stick) were mentioned in former legislation in relation to withdrawal rights; 

•  The  level  of  pre-contractual  information  which  traders  are  required  to  provide  to 
consumers  under  Art.  5  and  Art.  6  has  increased  in  all  MS  as  a  result  of 
implementing  the  CRD.      Moreover,  for  traders  who  fail  to  provide  pre-contractual 
information to consumers on RoW for distance and off-premises contracts (under Art. 
10), the withdrawal period has been increased from 3 months to 12 months from the 
end of the initial withdrawal period in 26 MS. However, in two countries, BE and DE, 
failure  to  provide  information  about  the  RoW  has  been  reduced  from  an  unlimited 
time period to one year; 

•  The  duration  of  the  withdrawal  period  for  distance  and  off-premises  (Art.  9)  has 
increased  in  several  MS,  where  previously  the  duration  of  the  RoW  was  between  7 
and  10  days  (AT,  BG,  ES,  FR,  HR,  IE,  LT,  LU,  NL12,  SK13,  UK),  8  days  (HU)  and  10 
days  (IT,  RO  and  PL).    In  a  number  of  other  MS,  there  was  already  a  14-day 
withdrawal  period  in  national  legislation  for  both  distance  selling  and  off-premises 
contracts (BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FI, LV, PT, SE and SI) before the entry into force 
of the  CRD.   This was  also the case in CY, where it was possible for  the trader and 
the  consumer  to  mutually  agree  on  a  different  time  period.    Only  two  MS  had  a 
higher  level  of  consumer  protection  prior  to  implementing  the  CRD  was  the  DE, 
where the period for the RoW was previously 30 days and MT (15 days);  

•  Prior  to  the  CRD,  traders  were  able  to  prepare  their  own  model  declaration  of 
withdrawal  form  as  part  of  the  contract  rather  than  being  obliged  to  use  a 
standardised  model.  Several  MS  had  already  formal  notification  procedures  in 
national  legislation  regarding  exercising  the  RoW  prior  to  the  CRD  (DE,  DK,  EL  and 
CY) although the use of withdrawal forms was optional.  In a number of MS, such as 
PL, LT and the UK,  among others,  all traders  were able to prepare their own model 

10   DG  Justice  Guidance  Document  concerning  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  25  October  2011  on  consumer  rights,  amending  Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  and  Directive 
1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and 
Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council - DG Justice (2014) 

11   This  is  in  contrast  to  the  CRD,  which  anticipates  the  provision  of  digital  content  either  from  a  tangible 

medium or through other non-tangible means, such as downloading and streaming. 

12   For  distance  sales,  the  previous  cooling-off  period  was  7  working  days.  However,  Dutch  legislation 
previously provided that the cooling-off period for  off-premises sales (with a minimum value of EUR 34) 
was 8 calendar days after receipt of the product. 

13   It should be noted that, for SK, the introduction of a 14 days’ withdrawal period does not always present an 
advantage in terms of a time gain. Under the pre-existing regulatory regime, the 7-day withdrawal period 
accounted  for  working  days  only.  That  means  that  a  withdrawal  period  that  started  on  21st  December 
2015 would continue until 7th January 2015 (because there are many bank holidays during the Christmas 
period). However, in line with new rules set by CDR, the withdrawal period accounts for all days, including 
weekends and bank holidays.  Therefore, the withdrawal period starting 21st December would expire on 4th 
January 2015. See legal mapping annex. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

declaration  of  withdrawal  from  the  contract.  In  some  MS,  exercising  the  RoW  (Art. 
11)  had  to  be  explicitly  made  in  writing  (e.g.  LT,  PL).  In  others  it  could  be  either 
made orally or in writing (e.g. SE, UK); 

•  Pre-CRD,  the  most  common  timeframe  for  a  reimbursement  following  the  RoW  was 
30 days (BE, BG,14 CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL15, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU,16 IE, IT, LU,17 LV, NL, 
PL,  RO,  SE  and  the  UK),  which  has  now  been  reduced  to  14  days.    In  AT,  the  pre-
CRD  legislation  did  not  specify  the  refund  period  for  traders  to  comply  with.  In  PL, 
the  duration  for  the  refund  period  was  already  14  days  and  in  LT  and  SK  the 
equivalent period was within 15 days of the consumer giving notice.  

Concerning  the  amounts  for  reimbursement,  the  situation  varied  from  country  to 
country.   In LT, there was no requirement previously that refunds should include regular 
delivery  costs.  In  DE,  the  previous  legislation  stipulated  that  the  refund  had  to  include 
the costs of delivery, but the consumer was obliged to bear these costs if the goods had 
a  value  below  EUR  40.    With  regard  to  the  return  costs  of  delivery  in  PL,  under  the 
previous  legislation,  the  trader  had  to  return  to  the  consumer  all  costs  which  resulted 
from delivery18; 

•  Prior to the CRD, the rules on delivery varied across MS.  A minority of EU countries 
(BG19,  DK,  EL20,  HR,  HU21,  NL,22)  already  had  a  delivery  period  limit  of  30  days.  
However, many MS did not have a specific time period for delivery (CZ, EE, ES, FR, 
IE,  LV,  MT,  PT,  SK,  FI,  SE23  and  the  UK).    In  BE,  and  for  off-premises  contracts, 
traders had to deliver goods as  soon as there  was an agreement.   In  some MS (IE, 
SE,  UK),  the  delivery  period,  where  this  had  not  been  specified  in  the  contractual 
agreement  between  the  parties,  was  required  to  be  within  a  “reasonable”  time 
period;   

• 

In  relation  to  the  passing  of  risk  (Article  20  of  the  CRD),  a  few  MS  shared  similar 
rules  (e.g.    CY,  FR,  ES,  IE,  IT,  LT  and  NL  and  SK),  but  these  were  marginally  less 
favourable  to  consumers  pre-  CRD.    In  the  UK  and  PL,  there  were  similar  levels  of 
protection  for  consumers  but  the  new  rules  have  brought  greater  clarity.  In  SE  and 
FI, the passing of risk was made when the consumer had physically taken control of 
the  goods.    However,  the  good  was  also  considered  to  have  been  delivered  when 
handed over to an independent courier service.  Likewise, in DK and PL, delivery took 
place  when  the  goods  were  in  possession  of  the  buyer.  Therefore,  in  a  few  MS,  the 
CRD has not meant any major changes in respect of the passing of risk, although the 
rules  have  reduced  legal  uncertainty.  However,  there  were  no  rules  specifically 
concerning the passing of risk in the meaning of Article 20 of the CRD in BG and EL; 

14   Distance contracts only:  there was no mention in the previous Bulgarian legislation of refund rights for off-

premises contracts. 

15   Distance selling contracts only. 
16   The old HU legislation referred to distance contracts only. There were no refund deadlines for off-premises 

contracts.  

17   Distance contracts only.  
18   The  consumer  should  only  bear  the  cost  of  returning  the  goods  to  a  trader  in  connection  with  the 
withdrawal  from  the  contract.  This  interpretation  resulted  from  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the 
European Union C -511/08. 

19   Distance contracts only; no rules in BG covering off-premises contracts.  
20   Distance selling contracts only. 
21   Ibid. 
22   Written  notification  was  also  required  to  put  the  seller  in  default  of  his  delivery  obligations  under  the 
previous NL legislation (Articles 6:81 and 82 Dutch Civil Code). Notification does not have to be in written 
form under Article 18(2) of the CRD. 

23   Note  that  in  FI  and  SE,  the  rules  on  delivery  are  broadly  similar  under  the  CRD,  but  with  some  minor 

changes.  

28 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

•  A majority of MS had no provisions in their national legislation protecting consumers 
against  excessive  surcharging  prior  to  the  CRD  (Art.  19)  under  the  2007  Payment 
Services Directive (2007/64/EC)24.  These included BE, FR, HU and SE;  

•  The ban on charging above the basic standard telephone rate (Art. 21) for contacting 
the trader by phone, for contracts already  concluded, is a new requirement in most 
MS.  In EL and HU the previous laws required that consumers be informed about any 
additional  costs  of  communication  over  and  above  the  basic  rate  but  such  charges 
were still allowed; 

•  The ban on pre-ticked boxes (Art. 22) provided for by the CRD is a new requirement 
in  all  MS  except  for  DE  and  SE,  where  they  were  already  prohibited  under  national 
legislation; and 

•  The provision on inertia selling (Art. 27) in the CRD in respect of distance contracts is 

new in most MS with the following exceptions: AT, CY, CZ, EL, IE and SK. 

Implementation in MS of regulatory choices 

Despite  the  Directive  being  a  full  harmonisation  Directive,  there  are  a  number  of 
regulatory  options  available  to  the  MS  on  its  implementation  following  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity  and  allowing  some  flexibility  to  the  MS.  The  following  articles  of  the  CRD 
offer a regulatory choice: 

•  Article 3 (4) – not to apply the provisions to off-premises contracts if the payment to 

be made by the consumer does not exceed 50 euros;  

•  Article  6  (7)  –  to  impose  language  requirements  regarding  the  contractual 

information for distance and off-premises contracts; 

•  Article  6  (8)  –  to  impose  additional  information  requirements  in  accordance  with 
Directive  2006/123/EC  and  Directive  2000/31/EC  regarding  distance  and  off-
premises contracts; 

•  Article 7 (4) – not to apply a simplified information regime for off-premises contracts 

to carry out repairs or maintenance; 

•  Article  8  (6)  –  to  introduce  specific  formal  requirements  for  contracts  concluded  by 

telephone; and 

•  Article  9  (3)  –  to  maintain,  in  the  case  of  off-premises  contracts,  existing  national 
legislation prohibiting the trader from collecting payment from the consumer during a 
given period after the conclusion of the contract. 

Table 2-4 sets out the regulatory options that have been adopted by MS.  These must be 
reported  to  the  EC  under  Article  29.  In  addition,  under  Art.  5  (4)  MS  may  adopt  or 
maintain  additional  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  contracts  other  than 
distance or off-premises contracts.  However, Art. 5 (4) is not covered by Article 29, so 
MS do not have to report its implementation.   

24   The  Directive  allows  MS  to  prohibit  all  surcharges  voluntary  basis.  Some  MS  have  already  prohibited 

surcharges irrespective of the means of payment. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 2-4:  Application of the CRD regulatory choices by MS 

Country 

Article 3 (4) 

Article 6 (7) 

Article 6(8) 

Article 7(4) 

Art 8(6) 

Article 9 (3) 

Austria (AT) 

Yes; limit 50 EUR  Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes; 
for 
only 
services contracts 

Not used 

Belgium (BE) 

Yes,  50  EUR  but 
only  for  contracts 
with 
a 
humanitarian 
purpose 

Not used 

Not used 

Possibility 
retained  but  not 
yet used25 

Possibility 
retained  but  not 
yet used 25 

Bulgaria (BG) 
Croatia (HR) 
Cyprus (CY) 
Czech 
(CZ) 

Republic 

Not used 
Not used 
Yes; limit of €20 

Not used 

Yes 
Yes 
Yes 

Yes 

Denmark (DK) 

limit  350 

Yes, 
DKK (46 EUR) 

if 
Yes;  Danish, 
marketing  done 
in Danish 

Not used 
Not used 
Yes 

Not used 

Not used 
Not used 
Not used 

Not used 

Yes 
Not used 
Yes 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Estonia (EE) 

Yes, limit is €20 

Yes  

Not used 

Not used 

Finland (FI) 

Yes26 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

France (FR) 

Not used 

Yes 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes. 
Article 
applies only when 
the  professional 
calls 
the 
consumer 
Not used 
Yes. 
Article 
applies only when 
sales 
a 
the 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes -7 days 

25  The unofficial translation notes that  Belgium has made use of this option but it is the King who has the possibility of introducing a lighter arrangement for providing 
information. Similarly under Art 8, it is the King who has the possibility of designating sectors to which the requirement will apply. It is uncertain whether it has been 
used.  

26   According to a consultatee this is €30. 

30 

Yes,  7  days,  but 
does not  apply to 
off-premises 
contracts 
in 
concluded 
shows,  fairs  and 
exhibitions 
Not used 
Not used 
Not used 

Not used 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Article 3 (4) 

Article 6 (7) 

Article 6(8) 

Article 7(4) 

Art 8(6) 

Article 9 (3) 

Germany (DE) 

Yes, limit is €40 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

professional  calls 
the consumer27 
Not 
but 
used 
there  was  a  prior 
legislative 
requirements  of 
this 
for 
kind 
certain sectors 

Greece (EL) 

Yes, limit is €30 

Not used 

Hungary (HU) 
Ireland (IE) 

Not used 
Yes, limit is €50 

Not used 
Not used 

Not used28 

Yes29 
Not used 

Not used 

Not used 
Yes 

Yes 

Not used 
Not used 

Italy (IT) 

Yes, limit is €50 

Yes, 
if 
consumer 
requests it 

the 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes 

Latvia (LV) 

Lithuania (LT) 

Yes, limit is €35 
than 
less 
Yes, 
100  LTL  (approx. 
€29) 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes 

Not used 

Yes 

Luxembourg (LU)  Yes, limit is €50 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Malta (MT) 

Yes. Limit is 30 € 

Yes, either official 
language 
is 
required 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Not used 

Yes  -  during  the 
withdrawal period 
Not used 
Not used 
No. 
No 
promissory 
note  with  a  due 
date  less  than  15 
days 
after 
delivery of goods 
Not used 

Not used 

Not used 
Yes,  deposit  can 
only  be  collected 
14  days  after  the 
conclusion  of  the 

27 Section 5, Article L221-16 of the French consumer code stipulates that it is illegal to conclude contract through an unknown telephone number (blocked number). 
 - Article L221-17. 
28   Greece have transposed the text of Art 6(8) of the Directive (almost word-by-word) in the form of Article 3β(7) of their Law 2251/1994 (as amended) but they have not 

introduced any concrete additional information requirements.  Interviews have confirmed that no real action has been taken in this area. 

29  It  has  laid  down  additional  requirements  on  the  provision  of  information  on  warranties  and  guarantees,  right  to  conciliation  and  Information  on  electronic 

correspondence. The unofficial translation is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/hu_reg_choices_art_29_en_version.pdf 

31 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Article 3 (4) 

Article 6 (7) 

Article 6(8) 

Article 7(4) 

Art 8(6) 

Article 9 (3) 

the  Netherlands 
(NL) 

Poland (PL) 

Yes, limit is €50 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes 

Yes,  limit  is  50 
PLN. 
[approx. 
€12] 

Yes 

Not used 

Not used 

Portugal (PT) 

Yes,  but  only  to 
subscription 
of 
periodical 
items 
for a limit of €40 

Yes 

Not used 

Yes 

Romania (RO) 

Yes, limit is €50 

Yes 

Not used 

Not used 

Slovakia (SK) 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Slovenia (SI) 

Yes, limit is €20 

Yes 

Not used 

Yes 

Yes 

Spain (ES) 

Not used 

Yes 

Not used 

Yes 

(limited 

Yes 
application) 
Article 
Yes. 
applies only when 
the 
sales 
professional  calls 
the consumer 
Yes. 
Article 
applies only when 
the 
sales 
professional  calls 
the consumer 
Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
Yes. 
Article 
applies only when 
the 
sales 
professional  calls 
the consumer 
Not used 

contract 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 
Yes  –  until  the 
the 
of 
end 
withdrawal period 
Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

Sweden (SE) 

The UK (UK) 

Yes, limit is €4330  Not used 
Partial 
exemption:  off-
premises  <  €50 
from 
exempt 
certain 
information  and 
RoW 

Not used 

30 The amount is 400SEK. 

Not used 

Not used 

Yes,  in  part  –  for 
energy  providers 
and estate agents 

Not used 

Not used 

Not used 

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In summary, the regulatory choices examined include: 

•  Art.  3  (4)  gives  the  option  to  exclude  from  the  application  of  the  Directive  off-
premises contracts for which the payment does not exceed 50 EUR.  The different MS 
have made use of this choice to a varying degree.  Twelve MS (CY,  DK, DE, EE, EL, 
FI, LV, LT, MT, PL, SI, SE) have set out value limits for contracts to be excluded from 
the scope of the directive whilst three MS (BE, PT and the UK) have applied a partial 
exemption. The remaining MS have not made use of this Article. 

•  According to Art. 6(7), for distance and off-premises contracts, MS may maintain or 
introduce language requirements in contractual information.  More than half of all MS 
have made use of this regulatory choice.  In MS with more than one official language, 
such  as  in  CY  and  MT,  the  regulatory  choice  requires  information  to  be  provided  at 
least  in  one  of  the  country’s  official  languages.    In  other  countries,  it  is  required  to 
use  the  language  in  which  the  contract  is  concluded  (CZ)  or    if  requested  by  the 
consumer (IT)  

•  Art. 6(8) allows MS to impose additional information requirements in accordance with 
Directive  2006/123/EC  and  Directive  2000/31/EC  regarding  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts.  Only  three  EU  MS  have  made  use  of  this  option:  UK,  HU,  CY, 
with  some  differences.    In  HU,  the  legislator  has  added  requirements  such  as  the 
provision  of  information  on  warranties  and  guarantees,  information  on  the  right  to 
conciliation and on electronic correspondence other than for off-premises or distance 
contract.  In  the  UK,  this  option  has  been  used  only  partially:  enhanced  information 
requirements are now needed by energy providers and estate agents.  

•  Art.  7(4)  on  simplified  information  requirements  have  been  used  by  IE,  LT,  NL,  PT, 
SI, SK and ES but not  in other  EU MS.  In BE,  this possibility has been retained but 
has not yet been used. 

•  Art.  8(6)  allows  MS  to  set  out  a  requirement  to  confirm  the  contract  if  this is  to  be 
concluded by telephone.  The majority of MS31 have decided to apply this regulatory 
option but in some MS it only applies when the professional calls the consumers (and 
not when the consumer makes the first contact). 

•  Prohibition  to  collect  payment  during  a  given  period  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
contract:  Only  a  few  MS  have  applied  this  provision:  BE,  FR,  EL,  MT  and  SK.    The 
periods that have been set up are 7 days and 14 days (see Table 2-4). 

Thus, only a few MS have taken up the regulatory choices offered by the CRD.  The most 
frequent  provision  taken  by  MS  is  the  language  requirements  for  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts;  followed  by  simplified  information  requirements  for  repair  and 
maintenance work and the need to confirm the contract concluded by phone. 

Enforcement and penalties 

Enforcement and penalties can have the effect of enhancing effectiveness by dissuading 
traders from being non-compliant and breaching the provisions of the CRD. According to 
Article  23(1)  MS  shall  ensure  that  adequate  and  effective  means  exist  to  ensure 
compliance  with  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive.  According  to  Article  24(1)  of  the  CRD 
MS  shall  lay  down  the  rules  on  penalties  applicable  to  infringements  of  the  national 
provisions  implementing  the  Directive  and  shall  take  all  measures  necessary  to  ensure 
that  they  are  implemented.  The  penalties  must  be  effective,  proportionate  and 
dissuasive.  

31 Except HR, CZ, DK, DE, IE, FI, HU, LU, LV, SE, UK. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table  2-5  provides  an  overview  of  institutional  responsibilities  for  enforcement  and  the 
level of penalties that can be imposed on traders in a few MS. The selection of countries 
was  based  on  the  readily  available  literature  and  is  offered  as  an  illustration  of  the 
different  approaches  and  arrangements.  The  table  also  specifies  whether  penalties  that 
can be applied are civil, administrative or also criminal.  

Generally,  most  enforcement  activities  relating  to  the  CRD  across  EU-28  MS  are 
undertaken  by  enforcement  authorities,  including  the  competition  authorities,  taking 
legal  action  against  traders  in  case  of  non-compliant  practices  that  affect  consumer 
interests (e.g. PL, LT, UK) or on the basis of received complaints (including complaints of 
qualified entities under the Injunctions Directive) (e.g. IT, LT and PL). In other countries, 
such  as  SE,  a  dedicated  ombudsman  administers  complaints  and  brings  strategically 
important  legal  cases  to  court  against  traders  on  behalf  of  consumers.  The  Trading 
Standards  bodies  in  the  UK  adopt  a  similar  approach  i.e.  may  interest  themselves  in 
certain  cases  that  have  strong  potential  to  have  a  deterrent  effect  (although  since  the 
CRD  came  into  effect,  there  have  been  no  cases  as  yet,  but  there  were  such  cases  in 
respect  of  distance  and  off-premises  contracts  under  the  previously  applicable 
legislation).  

The national competent authority responsible for enforcement varies between countries. 
A broad typology of enforcement approaches has been identified as follows: 

•  A body directly under a Ministry - e.g. State Consumer Rights Protection Authority in 
LT  under  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  the  Competition  and  Consumer  Protection 
Commission in Ireland under the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; 

•  A public organisation or agency not linked to a specific government Ministry - e.g. the 
Competition  and  Markets  Authority  (UK)  is  a  non-ministerial  department,  and  the 
national competition authority AGCM in IT is an independent body, as is the Consumer 
Ombudsman in SE;  

•  A  centralised  approach  where  enforcement  falls  under  the  direct  responsibility  of  a 
Ministry  –  in  EL,  the  enforcement  function  has  been  centralised,  and  the  Ministry 
directly imposes fines on traders and issues recommendations; and  

•  An  approach  whereby  enforcement  is  mainly  the  responsibility  of  consumer 
organisations  and  individual  consumers.    In  DE,  there  is  no  single  public  authority 
competent to enforce the provisions of the CRD and enforcement is mainly left either 
to private individual consumers (e.g. taking cases to court or reaching an agreement 
with traders through an ADR mechanism. This may serve to encourage the trader to 
become compliant with the provisions of the CRD in future so as to avoid complaints 
from  consumers  or  legal  problems  in  future).  Alternatively,  as  in  the  UK,  consumer 
organisations may choose to take on a limited number of strategic deterrent cases.  

In  terms  of  penalties,  a  distinction  can  be  made  between  penalties  imposed  in  the 
context of civil, administrative or criminal proceedings. 

It  can  be  noted  that  the  types  of  penalties  that  may  be  imposed  under  the  CRD  vary, 
and  the  way  in  which  they  are  integrated  into  national  law  also  varies,  depending  on 
whether the CRD has been transposed into a single piece of legislation, a consumer code 
that combines several different pieces of legislation etc.  

In the following table, an overview of enforcement approaches and penalties in selected 
Member States is provided. It should be noted that a comprehensive mapping across all 
EU  Member  States  was  not  required.  The  findings  from  the  analysis  are  provided  after 
the table in landscape.  

34 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 2-5:  Enforcement and penalties in selected Member States 

MS 

AT 

Enforcement system 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

Austrian Law provides for administrative penalties, but there is no 
tradition in Austria of enforcing administrative penalties at this 
level. Civil consumer law is mainly enforced by the civil courts. The 
enforcement of consumer civil law is mainly ensured through a 
high level of activity of consumer associations, such as the 
Consumer Information Association (Verein für 
Konsumenteninformation) and Chamber of labour 

1450 EUR for every administrative breach of the CRD32 

DE 

The enforcement of the obligations of businesses under the CRD  is 
mainly left to private actors: 

As a rule, only civil penalties (which are, in general, considered as 
effective). 

1.  Individual consumers can enforce their rights granted 

under the CRD against businesses in the ordinary courts33. 

2.  Consumer and business organisations, individual 

competitors and Chambers of Industry and Commerce are 
entitled to litigate in the ordinary courts against businesses 
which infringe EU consumer legislation. Legal basis: 
Unterlassungsklagengesetz (Act on Injunctions for the 
Protection of Consumers' Interests); Gesetz gegen den 
Unlauteren Wettbewerb (Act Against Unfair Competition) 

Only in specific sectors (e.g. financial services, telecommunication) 
specific authorities such as the Federal Financial Supervisory 
Authority [BaFin] or the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA) are 
competent to act against businesses that infringe consumer law. 
There is no general authority competent to issue 'cease and desist' 
letters or to fine businesses. 

Only when contacted from abroad under the Regulation on 
consumer protection cooperation 2006/2004, the Federal Ministry 
of Justice and Consumer Protection may take some measures 

In certain sectors (e.g. financial services, telecommunication) 
administrative penalties (e.g. fine up to €300,000 for ‘cold calling’, § 20 
Gesetz gegen den Unlauteren Wettbewerb (Act Against Unfair 
Competition). 

If litigation is successful against a trader, then the plaintiffs have their 
costs reimbursed by non-compliant business(es). The judgement may be 
published on costs of the business as a deterrent. In cases where the 
nature of the non-compliance breach was especially significant, 
businesses may also be ordered to pay damages, but this is rare in 
practice.  

Criminal penalties only under the Criminal Code (e.g. for fraud). 

32 http://www.wolftheiss.com/fileadmin/content/6_news/pdf/WT_Client_Alert_VRUG_20140602_english.pdf  
33   See:  http://www.osborneclarke.com/connected-insights/publications/consumer-rights-directive-implications-online-businesses/  

35 

 
 
 
                                                           
MS 

DK 

Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Enforcement system 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

against businesses in Germany. In 2015, the Ministry received only 
10 such enforcement requests34. Recently, the Ministry announced 
that it plans to close some of the remaining enforcement gaps by 
introducing a new authority (or to entrust an existing authority) 
with some competences for the administrative enforcement of 
consumer law.35 

The Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (Konkurrence- og 
Forbrugerstyrelsen) is the enforcement authority for any consumer 
complaints. A new process has been introduced whereby all 
complaints have to go through a mediation process between the 
consumer and the trader to try to reach an amicable resolution. 
The Centre for Complaints Resolution (Center for Klageløsning) at 
the Authority will assist in this process for a fee of DKK 100 (+/- 
€14). If a solution cannot be reached in this way, only then can the 
complaint be put to the Consumer Complaints Board (which is an 
independent body made up of a chairman - professional judge -, 2 
consumer and 2 business representatives appointed for a 4-year 
term by the Minister for Economic and Business Affairs). The Board 
can only consider complaints made by consumers (against a fee of 
DKK 400/€55). If the Board decides in favour of the consumer, the 
fee is reimbursed. There is a value limit for goods or services at 
the root of the complaint (between DKK 800 - DKK 100,000€?). 
Complaints are considered in writing and the parties are not 
present. A case can take up to 12 months to be resolved   

The trader has to cover the legal costs related to the proceedings run by 
the Consumer Complaints Board (up to DKK 1,000 if an agreement is 
reached (EUR 134.5) and DKK 6,000(807.4 EUR) if the consumer wins a 
case). The trader has 30 days to comply with the Board’s decision. If they 
do not, their name will be published on the ‘Business Check’ (Firmatjek) 
which is a type of blacklist. The consumer can also bring the case to 
court, where an additional fine may be imposed. There are examples of 
fines being levied following court cases of circa DKK 20,000 (€2,700).  

EL 

A court action can be initiated before the Civil Courts by a 
consumer or/and a consumer association. Pursuant to article 
10(16) of Joint Ministerial Decision No Ζ1-891/2013, a class 
action36 against a particular trader brought by a consumer 
associations that have more than 500 members and have been 

14 fines have been imposed by the Consumer General Secretariat (with a 
total value of €83,000) and 4 recommendations were made following the 
transposition of the Directive.  Those cases did not concern digital content 
contracts but rather sales and services contracts. Fines have ranged 
between €1,500 and €25,000 per case.  Nine of the 14 cases related to 

34   See BMJV report: 

http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Verbraucherportal/Berichte_VerbraucherschutzdurchsetzungsG/Bericht_fuer_das_Jahr_2015.pdf?__blob=publicati
onFile&v=2  

35   See BMJV (http://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Artikel/DE/2016/04152016_Verbraucherrechtstage.html)  
36 A class action is a type of lawsuit where one of the parties is a group of people who are represented collectively by a consumer association or a third party such as a legal 

firm. 

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Enforcement system 

registered in the consumer association’s public registrar for at least 
one year. In the latter case, the Multi-Member Court of First 
Instance of the place of residence of the defendant has jurisdiction.  

The Consumer General Secretariat of the Greek Ministry of 
Economy, Development and Tourism imposes fines and collects 
statistics on enforcement cases relating to the CRD.  

At the time  when the EC’s ‘sweep’  for the implementation of the 
Directive took place, it had been observed on websites of some 
companies that shortly before the completion of an order the total 
cost was not given (i.e. extra charges were not disclosed and 
included to the overall price). Recommendations were thus made 
(this related to an airline as well as telemarketing companies 
selling so-called ‘smart’ products) 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

information requirements and 10 cases related to the right to withdraw. 

Courts may also issue pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages37. 

The most common infringement of the provisions of the Directive (as 
transposed) was that of pre-contractual information obligations (Article 3β 
of Law 2251/1994 as amended) and the right to withdraw (Article 3ε of 
Law 2251/1994).  For instance, the consumer had no access to the details 
of the supplier and other pre-contractual information, they were not 
provided details of their right of withdrawal, nor was the product/service 
accompanied by a model withdrawal form. As far as pre-contractual 
information requirements are concerned, the main problem is when the 
consumer is not provided with complete information, e.g. who the trader 
is, where they are based, what their telephone number is.   

FR 

The French Authority for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and 
Fraud Control, also known as the French Consumer Protection 
Authority (DGCCRF), is responsible for enforcement  

A summary of penalties in the revised 2016 French Consumer Code38, 
which replaced earlier legislation for different provisions of the CRD is 
now summarised. It should be noted that the associated penalties for all 
the provisions are common across the different Articles of the CRD as 
transposed into the 2016 French consumer code with a fine of up to EUR 
3,000 (natural persons) or EUR 15,000 (legal persons) for each of the 
following:. 

If the trader does not inform the consumer about their RoW from the 
contract, then the RoW is extended to a period of 12 months. If this 
information is provided during a 12 month period then the withdrawal 
period expires 14 days after the relevant information was communicated 
to the consumer. Previously under French Law, the cancellation period for 
failure to provide sufficient information was 3 months. 

Articles L131-1 to L131-4 of the revised code deal with general pre-
contractual information obligations.  

Returns costs (Article R131-1) - The fact that a professional seller or 

37   See Greek Law Digest (http://www.greeklawdigest.gr/topics/consumer-protection/item/110-consumer-protection-regulations) 
38 2016 French Consumer Code - https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069565&dateTexte=29990101&categorieLien=cid  

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Enforcement system 

IE 

Responsibility for enforcement is mainly the responsibility of the 
Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC), which 
was established in 2014. However, in some sectors, other 
regulators, such as the telecoms regulator, also have regulatory 
powers to investigate breaches of consumer protection legislation 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

service provider fails to furnish to any interested person who so requests 
a copy of the agreements he usually proposes, in breach of the provisions 
of Article L. 114-1, is a punishment with a fine of the 5th class. 
Recidivism is punishable in accordance with the provisions of Articles 132-
11 and 132-15 of the Criminal Code. Inertia selling is dealt with in 
Paragraph 1: Civil penalties (Article L132-16) and in Paragraph 2: Penal 
penalties (Articles L132-17 to L132-18).   

Subsection 6: Premium Telephone Number (Article L132-21).  
Any failure to comply with the obligations relating to the telephone 
number of consumer assistance referred to in Article L. 121-16 is liable to 
an administrative fine (for the same amount as stipulated earlier above). 
This fine shall be imposed in accordance with the conditions laid down in 
Chapter II of Title II of Book V of the French consumer code. 

Subsection 7: Additional payment without express consent (Article L132-
22).  
Any breach of the obligation to collect the express consent of the 
consumer under the conditions provided for in Article L. 121-17 is liable to 
an administrative fine (see amount above). 

Subsection 8: Collection and return costs (Article L132-23). The violation 
of the prohibition on collection costs mentioned in Article L. 121-21 is 
punishable by imprisonment for two years and a fine of 300,000 euros. 
The amount of the fine may be increased proportionately to the benefits 
derived from the offense by 10% of the average annual turnover 
calculated on the last three known annual turnovers at the date of the 
offense. 

Mainly civil and administrative penalties but, criminal penalties can be 
imposed in particular circumstances. 

Quite a large number of fines have been issued, but the average size of 
fine per breach (€300) is quite low. Sometimes fines are imposed for 
multiple breaches. For example, the Irish telecoms regulator issued 850 
individual fines of the CRD confirmation requirement of €300 against a 
single trader.  

The majority of consumers’ complaints are resolved without recourse to 
legal action in Ireland, through voluntary resolution between the 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Enforcement system 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

IT 

The Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della 
Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM www.agcm.it)) is an 
administrative independent Authority 

There is no difference in Italy in enforcement powers when 
enforcing the UCPD or the CRD. The powers are set out in Art. 27 
of the consumer code.  

Compared with some other national enforcement authorities, the 
AGCM has more of a judicial-like approach with only formal 
proceedings and no informal relations with traders or an advisory 
role and the authority does not issue ex-ante guidelines on how to 
comply with the law to either consumers or traders. 

consumer and the trader using an ADR.  

In addition, as part of its enforcement powers, the CPCC is able to launch 
pre-enforcement actions and write to traders that they have found to be 
in breach of the provisions of the CRD. In the majority of cases, a letter 
to the trader pointing to areas of non-compliance in order to bring a 
trader’s attention to non-compliance has been sufficient to get the trader 
to take steps to become compliant.  

However, in its capacity as the national enforcement authority, some 
cases have gone to court and in total, about 20 enforcement actions have 
been taken by the CCPC.  Monetary penalties can be sought if summary 
proceedings are instituted in a lower court. In such a case, the maximum 
can be increased to €3000 / breach. If an indictment for a criminal case 
takes place through the Department for Public Prosecutions, then a higher 
court can impose a maximum penalty of €60,000. 

Art. 27 sets out the minimum fine of €5,000 and a maximum financial 
penalty of €5,000,000. These amounts apply both to infringements in 
respect of either the UCPD, CRD or both in parallel. In the event of 
repeated non-compliance, the Authority may order the trader to suspend 
trading for a period which shall not be more than thirty days. 

The amount of a fine issued is not sector-specific, nor does it depend on 
which consumer legislation has been infringed (e.g. the CRD or the 
UCPD).  

Rather, the general criteria for imposing administrative fines on traders 
are set out in Italian law (law 689/81). The amount is decided according 
to the seriousness of the infringement, the size of the trader, the number 
of consumers potentially affected, which depends among other factors on 
the means of communication used (internet, telephone, etc.), whether 
harm to consumers was intentional or unintentional and on the length of 
time of the infringement (even if this has ceased). If breaches by a trader 
apply under more than one Directive, then the fine is imposed for each 

39 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

LT 

PL 

Enforcement system 

The State Consumer Rights Protection Authority 
(http://www.vvtat.lt/) is responsible for enforcing the application 
of the CRD  

The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKIK) has 
administrative enforcement powers, and can carry out proceedings 
concerning practices infringing collective consumer interests. As a 
result of such proceedings, the President of UOKIK may order the 
enterprise concerned to cease practices which were found to be 
objectionable and impose a fine 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

illicit conduct separately. To date, 7 fines have been issued to companies 
in the energy sector39. 

The SCRPA may impose a fine of €144 to €1448 on a trader for failure to 
comply with the requirements of the CRD as transposed into the Civil 
Code implementing provisions.  In the first 2 years of implementation, 5 
fines were issued to traders. In the first year of implementation, there 
was a horizontal governmental policy that no fines would be issued but 
rather written warnings would be sent to traders in potential breach of the 
CRD provisions (this was only applicable until December 31 2015 since 
when fines have been issued) 

The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection takes action when 
collective consumer interests are breached. It can issue an administrative 
decision and impose a fine. 

In 2015, the financial, energy and telecommunications and e-commerce 
sectors were among the most problematic sectors40. The Authority 
initiated 106 proceedings concerning practices infringing collective 
consumer interests, and 473 preliminary proceedings. It issued 144 
decisions, including 80 obliging traders to change a practice. Another 24 
ordered the cessation of prohibited activities and 40 the cessation of a 
practice. Soft interventions also figured prominently in the protection of 
consumer interests: of the 523 conducted, 357 were completed, with 
98% of traders following UOKiK’s indications. Not all these cases related 
to the CRD but many did so. 

Under Polish consumer law generally, the UOKIK can issue a fine of up to 
10% of the enterprise’s previous year revenue 

SE  

At national level, the Swedish Consumer Agency 
(www.konsumentverket.se) is the responsible national 
enforcement authority and is a Swedish government agency under 
the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Affairs.  The 

In relation to the proceedings brought by the Consumer Ombudsman, the 
Market Courts and consumer rights agency can issue penalties (i.e. fines) 
for non-compliance. https://data.riksdagen.se/fil/CD3E4387-C369-4EB7-
816A-59AA6DE7558E 

39   See  AGCM: 

(www.agcm.it/en/newsroom/press-releases/2283-ps9769-ps10000-ps9815-ps9999-ps9578-ps9406-ps9834-fines-of-%E2%82%AC6-0-million-to-7-

companies-providing-electricity-and-gas-services-for-the-activation-of-unsolicited-supplies.html)      

40   See UOKIK (https://uokik.gov.pl/news.php?news_id=12592)  

40 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Enforcement system 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

MS 

UK 

Swedish Consumer Agency is headed by a Director General who is 
also the Consumer Ombudsman (Konsumentombudsman, KO).  
The Swedish Consumer Ombudsman plays a role in taking up 
complaints and legal cases on behalf of consumers that could have 
a potential deterrent effect on malpractice by traders 

At national level, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”), a 
non-ministerial department, has statutory powers to investigate 
compliance with the CRD. Local authority Trading Standards 
Services and standards officers also have enforcement and 
investigatory powers 

The level of fines that can be issued varies from SEK 5,000 (€512) 
upwards with a maximum fine of SEK 5m (€512,017). However, fines at 
the upper end of the spectrum can only be imposed in instances where it 
has been proven that there have been market-distorting behaviours.  

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out a framework that clarifies the 
maximum penalties that the regulator of premium rate services can 
impose on non-compliant and rogue operators. Among the penalties are 
warning letters for unfair business practices, investigations by the 
regulatory body, injunctions or even compensation claims from 
consumers41. 

To ensure traders comply with the reformed consumer law, a number of 
‘enforcers’ are granted investigatory powers to consider possible 
breaches. The 2015 Act looks to consolidate, modernise and simplify 
these investigatory powers to improve their transparency and accessibility 
for both traders and enforcers. Enforcers have also been afforded greater 
flexibility, through Enhanced Consumer Measures (ECMs), which aim to 
provide consumers with the best outcomes. There are three types of 
enforcers in the UK: 

•  Domestic enforcers, including Trading standards 

• 

Public designated enforcers 

•  Unfair contract terms enforcers, including Ofcom and Which? 

With regard to criminal offences under the Act, a person will commit a 
criminal act if they commit an obstruction offence in relation to an 
enforcer should they: 1) Intentionally obstruct an enforcer 2) 
Intentionally fail to comply with instructions given by an enforcer and 3) 
Fail to give an enforcer assistance or information reasonably required. 

41 

41   See UK Government (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Enforcement system 

Penalties  and illustrations of the typical level of penalties for non-
compliant traders 

This includes making a statement or reckless statement which the person 
knows is false or misleading.  If found guilty of this offence, a person may 
be fined up to GBP 1,000. Under the 2015 Act it is also an offence for a 
person to falsely act as an officer by purporting to use the powers 
prescribed in Schedule 5. A person found guilty of this offence may be 
fined up to GBP 5,000. 

42 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

National  competent  authorities  were  asked  whether  any  of  the  applicable  penalties 
relating  to  non-compliance  with  the  Directive  have  been  enforced;  78%  of  national 
competent  authorities  responded  positively.  When  asked  for  further  details  as  to  the 
level of penalties, information provided by national competent authorities has shown that 
penalties  are  quite  varied  and  can  range  from  fixed  amounts  ranging  from  €144  to 
€1448 in one country (i.e. LT) to a maximum of €100,000 in another (i.e. LV).    

Free  text  from  National  Competent  Authority  Survey  Q15  -  If  penalties  have 
been applied, please provide further details in the space below 

Penalties  

We  have  imposed  a  fine  on  a  webshop  for  not  complying  with  the  rules  for 
reimbursement. The company appealed against this decision. We expect to impose fines 
on other webshops for not complying with information requirements shortly. 

… may impose a fine amounting from €144 to €1,448 on a seller, service supplier for the 
failure  to  comply  with  …  provisions  of  CRD.  In  a  2  year  period  there  have  been  only 
several  penalties  imposed  to  traders  and  several  warnings  submitted  (according  to 
national rules warnings had been applicable till 2015 December 31). 

…For  non-compliance  with  the  national  provisions  transposing  the  CRD  together  with 
unfair commercial practices we have imposed a penalty in one case - EUR 50,000. 

ECC’s  were  also  asked  whether  they  were  aware  of  any  legal  cases  resulting  from  the 
CRD  taken  by  enforcement  authorities;  20%  of  the  EECs  responded  that  they  knew  of 
actions  within  their  own  country  and  17%  knew  of  cross-border  action  (from  a  total  of 
30 answers).  The details of such enforcement cases are provided in the next box. 

Free  text  from  ECC  survey  Q  6:    If  you  indicated  above  that  you  are  aware  of 
previous or forthcoming legal cases relating to non-compliance with the CRD by 
traders, please provide further details below: 

Consumers buy furniture through a British webpage and pay in advance. The trader does 
not deliver the products. Instead the date of delivery is postponed again and again. The 
consumers want to withdraw. The trader rejects the withdraw claiming that the 
consumers would have bought customized products.  

The Italian competition Authority fined two traders for not respecting the rules 
established (formal requirements of the contract) with regard the tele-selling. 
Furthermore, several telephone services providers were fined because they charged 
consumers for unsolicited goods      

…in 2015 in Ireland, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) 
reviewed the websites of a number of telecommunications providers and online retailers 
and, in particular, the information given to consumers in relation to their cancellation 
rights. Following the review of their websites, seven Irish traders were considered not to 
be compliant with different aspects of the CRD. The CCPC issued Compliance Notices 
notifying each of the companies that they had breached consumer protection legislation, 
directing them to correct the information they provide and to change their cancellation 
process. 

A fake web-store under the Polish name carrying out the sale of branded shoes at 
unexpectedly attractive prices. It turned out the commercial trap as contracts are not 
concluded and no deliveries are realised. There were up to 900 complaints lodged with 

43 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

the ECC Poland.  

The Danish CPC is investigating companies dealing with subscription traps on behalf of 
CPC´s in several other countries   

Contract concluded on a fair that happens once a year.   

In  respect  of  penalties,  in  most  MS  (with  the  exception  of  the  UK  and  IE),  civil  and 
administrative penalties can be imposed upon traders.  In DE, criminal penalties are only 
allowed  under  the  Criminal  Code  for  fraud.    However,  it  was  pointed  out  that  criminal 
penalties are only appropriate in the case of serious cases, for instance, where breaches 
of  the  CRD  were  part  of  an  overall  pattern  of  fraudulent  and  /  or  misleading  behaviour 
by traders.  

In relation to the level of penalties imposed by enforcement authorities on non-compliant 
traders, key findings were that: 

•  The level of financial penalties varies significantly between MS; 

•  Some  MS  are  able  to  impose  more  significant  fines  than  others,  especially  for 
breaches  that  constitute  market  distorting  behaviour.  Other  MS  face  significant 
constraints in terms of the maximum level of fine they are able to impose; and 

•  There  is  a  lack  of  evidence  as  to  what  impact  differences  in  the  level  of  financial 
penalties have had in terms of the level of compliance by traders (and therefore the 
overall  effectiveness  of  CRD  implementation).  However,  some  interviewees  from 
enforcement authorities expressed concern that the minimum and maximum level of 
fines they are able to impose are low, and could be an insufficient deterrent. 

•  The point in time when penalties are issued was found to vary. In some MS (e.g. IT, 
LT), fines are issued immediately either by the court or the responsible enforcement 
authority following the initial court action. Conversely, in other MS (e.g. SE), whilst a 
press release setting out the nominal amount of the fine is released, the fine can only 
actually be issued upon a repeat breach. 

Through  desk  research  and  email  correspondence  with  the  relevant  enforcement 
authority, several cases were identified relating to significant fines issued of a total of €6 
million by AGCM, the Italian competition authority on seven energy producers in Italy in 
2015 for violating the contract rules set out in the Italian Consumer  Code and the CRD 
and  UCPD42.    A  further  fine  of  €14  million  was  placed  on  several  energy  producers  for 
aggressive  practices  in  2016  (including  failure/delay  in  repayments,  charging  of  default 
interest  for  late  payment,  and  poor  management  of  the  cases  were  the  billing  for 
electrical or gas consumption differed from the actual measurements)43.  

However,  it  was  emphasised  by  some  stakeholders  that  the  level  of  penalties  in  many 
MS  is  relatively  modest,  unless  market-distorting  behaviour  can  be  identified  and 
proven.  In SE, theoretically, a fine of up to SEK 5m (€512,017) can be  issued but only 
for very significant breaches of the Directive with a significant impact for large numbers 
of  consumers.  Several  stakeholders  interviewed  pointed  to  the  low  level  of  financial 
penalties being an insufficient deterrent to tackle non-compliance, although the greatest 
challenge  was  seen  as  continuing  lack  of  traders'  awareness  about  the  detailed  rules 
compared with predecessor legislation. Traders do not appear to be motivated to be non-

42   http://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/agcm-steps-up-enforcement-against-companies-guilty-of-

selling-unfair-consumer-contracts-20151211  

43   http://www.agcm.it/en/newsroom/press-releases/2292-fines-exceeding-14-million-euro-imposed-on-acea,-

edison,-eni,-enel-energy-and-electricity-service-for-aggressive-billing.html  

44 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

compliant by the lack of deterrent of sufficient fines, rather than central problem is that 
until  alerted  by  enforcement  authorities  they  are  not  aware  that  they  were  non-
compliant  at  all.    This  is  confirmed  for  instance  in  the  findings  from  the  European 
Consumer  Sweep  which  shows  that  most  traders  took  swift  action  to  comply  with  the 
provisions  of  the  CRD,  but  only  when  informed  by  enforcement  authorities  that  they 
were non-compliant in the first place. 

Taking  some  examples  of  the  level  of  penalties  that  can  be  applied  and  differences 
between MS:  

•  The highest possible sanction in the EU in the selected Member States where data on 
the  level  of  penalties  was  available  appears  to  be  Italy  (financial  penalty  of 
€5,000,000). 

•  With regard to the lowest, there appear to be a large number of countries where the 

minimum fine for a breach of the CRD is in the order of EUR 100-200. 

•  Some specific illustrations of country-specific differences are now provided: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In  DK,  fines  of  €134.5  to  €807.4  if  resolved  by  the  Consumer  Complaints 
Board, with fines of around €2,700 if cases go to court; 

In EL, fines issued to date range between €1,500 and €25,000 per court case;  

In FR, €3,000 (natural persons) or €15,000 (legal persons i.e. firms). Criminal 
penalties  are  applied  with  a  maximum  sanction  of  2  years  of  imprisonment 
and a fine of €150,000; and  

In LT, the minimum fine is €144 and maximum is €1,448.  

In  HU,  the  fines  that  can  be  sanctioned  are:  2014:735.000  HUF  (2,384.26 
EUR), in 2015:275.000 HUF (EUR 892) 

In SK, the Slovak Trade Inspection can impose a fine at a maximum of 66,400 
(EUR) 

No evidence was identified in terms of a clear pattern between the level of penalties and 
the  effectiveness  of  enforcement.  For  instance,  taking  two  countries  that  have 
experienced  a  high  number  of  court  cases  relating  to  the  CRD  to  date  as  an  example, 
whilst  Germany  has  set  only  modest  levels  of  penalties,  in  Italy,  the  responsible 
enforcement  authorities  can  impose  a  high  level  of  penalties.  The  fact  that  legal  cases 
have  arisen  even  when  fines  are  high  (e.g.  energy  sector  in  Italy)  makes  it  difficult  to 
establish a direct correlation between the size of fines and the deterrence effect. 

A  further  difference  between  MS  relates  to  the  stage  of  the  enforcement  process  when 
penalties  can  be  imposed.    For  example,  in  SE,  after  a  court  reaches  a  judgement 
regarding non-compliance, punitive fines are issued along with a press release (“naming 
and  shaming”),  however  the  fines  are  designed  to  serve  as  a  deterrent  and  are  not 
actually imposed upon the trader unless there is a repeated breach.  

The  evaluation  research  identified  heterogeneity  in  approaches  to  enforcement  and  in 
the  civil  and  administrative  (and in  a  few  countries  also  criminal)  penalties  that  can  be 
imposed. This raises an issue as to whether the effectiveness of the CRD could be further 
enhanced if penalties and enforcement approaches were to become more harmonised, or 
at least if the level of divergence were to be reduced. One possibility could be to provide 
guidelines  in  the  DG  JUST  interpretative  guidance  on  common  minimum  suggested 

45 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

thresholds regarding the maximum amount of penalties at national level for breaches of 
EU consumer legislation.  

In addition, it can be noted that in the survey, stakeholders expressed the view that the 
need  to  further  strengthen  enforcement  should  be  more  of  a  priority  at  Member  State 
level  in  order  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive’s  implementation.  Further 
details as to views on enforcement are set out in the effectiveness section (see Section 
2.4.3 - Enforcement by competent authorities).  

Summary  of  findings  –  comparison  between  the  situation  pre-CRD  and 
post-CRD  

The  comparative  analysis  of  the  legislative  situation  pre-CRD  and  post-CRD  has 
highlighted  that,  for  many  of  the  key  provisions  of  the  CRD,  consumer  protection  has 
been  strengthened  in  most,  if  not  all,  MS.  This  is  because  there  was  either  no  such 
protection previously (e.g. for digital content and prohibiting default options on websites) 
or,  where  there  was  already  some  degree  of  protection,  increased  by  additional 
requirements  on  traders  and  harmonised  rules  on  consumer  protection.      In  particular, 
the analysis has shown: 

•  Prior  to  the  implementation  of  the  CRD,  in  almost  all  MS  consumers  were  not 
protected  by  legislation  specifically  concerning  digital  content.  The  only  exception  is 
the SK; 

•  The  level  of  pre-contractual  information  which  traders  are  required  to  provide  to 
consumers under Art. 5 and Art. 6 has increased in all MS and there are now greater 
consequences  if  traders  fail  to  provide  such  information,  with  the  withdrawal  period 
increasing  to  12  months  in  26  of  the  MS  but  in  BE  and  in  DE  the  failure  to  provide 
information  about  the  RoW  has  been  reduced  from  an  unlimited  time  period  to  one 
year;  

•  The period for the RoW (c.f. Art. 9) has increased in 15 Member States; remained the 
same in 11 (BE, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FI, LV, PT, SE and SI), and been reduced in two 
(DE, MT);  

•  Refund  periods  have  now  been  shortened  across  most  MS  and  the  amounts  that 

consumers are entitled to receive can now include the delivery costs; 

•  Delivery periods are now set in a number of countries where these were not regulated 

previously (CZ, EE, ES, FR, IE, LV, MT, PT, SK, SE and the UK);  

•  Although in cases it is quite difficult to determine whether the rules on the passing of 
risk  have  strengthened  consumer  protection  in  some  countries  (e.g.  SE,  DK,  FI  and 
the UK), the rules appear to be clearer; and 

•  Previously,  a  majority  of  MS  had  no  provision  in  their  national  legislation  protecting 
consumers  against  additional  payments,  excessive  telephone  charges  and  inertia 
selling.  

Moreover,  the  examination  of  national  legislation  in  the  different  MS  prior  to  the  CRD 
implementation has shown quite a significant degree of variation concerning the rules on 
consumer  protection  among  MS.    For  instance,  the  rules  on  delivery  varied  as  did  the 
periods for the RoW. Thus, the CRD has reduced differences among MS, contributing to 
the  reduction  of  regulatory  discrepancies  and  increasing  regulatory  certainty  across  MS 
for those traders and consumers selling and buying cross-border. 

Table  2-6  summarises  for  each  MS  whether  the  level  of  consumer  protection  has  been 
increased, reduced or stayed the same as a result of transposing various key provisions 
of the CRD into national legislation compared with the pre-existing legislation, which was 
mainly  (but  not  exclusively)  derived  from  the  two  predecessor  Directives,  Directive 

46 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

97/7/EC and Directive  85/577/EEC. The table  focuses only on the key provisions of the 
CRD.  

Table  2-6:    Consumer  protection  level  in  Member  States  (MS)  compared  with 
nat. legislation before CRD 

Current level of 
protection 
higher than 
pre- CRD 

Current level of 
protection 
similar to pre- 
CRD 

Current level of 
protection 
lower than pre- 
CRD 

All MS 

- 

BE (partially) 

BE, CY, CZ, DK, 
EE, EL, FI, LV, PT, 
SE and SI 

MT, DE  

Arts. 

Key provisions 

Art. 5 
and 6 - 

Information 
requirements 

Art. 9 

Harmonised 14-
day withdrawal 
period 

Art. 10 
-  

Omission of 
information on 
the right of 
withdrawal 

Art. 11 

Exercising the 
right of 
withdrawal 

Art. 16 

Multiple 
articles 
(see 
next 
column) 

Art. 22 
and Art. 
27 

Art. 
13(1) 

Art 13 
(1) 

Exceptions from 
the right of 
withdrawal 
Protections for 
digital content 
Digital content - 
Art 6, 9, 11, 12 
Art 14(4)b, Art. 
19, 21, 22 and 27 
Additional 
payments and 
Inertia selling 
(Failure to inform 
about hidden 
charges) 

Refund rights 
(Obligations of 
the trader in the 
event of 
withdrawal) 

Refund rights 
(Obligations of 
the trader in the 
event of 

AT, BG, ES, FR, 
HR, HU, IE, IT, 
LT, LU, NL, PL, 
RO, SK, UK 
AT, BG, CY, CZ, 
DK, EE, EL, ES, 
FI, FR, HR, HU, 
IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, NL, PL, PT, 
RO, SE, SI, SK, 
UK 
All MS, note: DE, 
DK, EL and CY 
already had 
model withdrawal 
forms (previously 
optional) 

- 

- 

All other MS 

SK 

All MS 

- 

AT, BE, BG, CZ, 
DE, DK, EE, EL, 
ES, FI, FR, HR, 
HU, IE, IT, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, NL, 
PT, RO, SE, SI, 
SK, UK 
AT, BE, BG, CZ, 
CY, DE, DK, EE, 
EL, ES, FI, FR, 
HR, HU, IE, IT, 

CY, PL 

PL 

BE, DE 

- 

All MS 

- 

- 

- 

- 

47 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Arts. 

Key provisions 

withdrawal) 

Art. 18 

Rules on delivery 

Art. 20 

Passing of risk45 

Art.  22 

Additional 
payments (ban on 
pre-ticked boxes 
on websites) 

Art. 19 

Elimination of 
unjustified 
surcharges on 
credit cards 

Art. 21 

Standard rate 
number 

Art. 27 

Inertia selling 

Current level of 
protection 
higher than 
pre- CRD 

Current level of 
protection 
similar to pre- 
CRD 

Current level of 
protection 
lower than pre- 
CRD 

LT, LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PT, RO, SE, 
SI, SK, UK 
AT, CZ, CY, EE, 
DE, EL, ES, FR, 
IE, IT, LT, LU LV, 
MT, PT, , RO, SI, 
SK, UK 
AT, BE, BG, CY, 
CZ, DE, EE, EL, 
ES, FR, HR, HU, 
IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, 
MT, PT, SI SK, 
NL, , RO 
AT, BE, BG, CY, 
CZ, DK, EE, EL, 
ES, FI, FR, HR, 
HU IE, IT, LT, LU, 
LV, MT, NL, PL, 
PT, RO, SI, SK, 
UK 
AT, BG, CZ, CY, 
DE, DK, EE, EL46, 
ES, FI, HR, IE, IT, 
LT, LV, LU, MT, 
NL, PL, PT, RO, 
SI, SK, UK, 

All MS 

BE, BG, CY, DE, 
DK, EE, ES, FI, 
FR, HR, HU, IT, 
LT, LU, LV, MT, 
NL, PT, RO, SE, 
SI,  UK 

BG, DK, FI, HR, 
HU, NL, PL, SE44 

BE 

PL, DK, FI, UK, 
SE 

DE, SE 

- 

- 

BE (implied), FR 
HU (partial) 

SE 

AT, CY, CZ, EL, IE 
and SK 

With  regard  to  regulatory  options,  some  MS  have  taken  up  these  regulatory  choices 
offered by the CRD.  The most frequent provision taken by MS, in order of magnitude,  is 
the exclusion of the scope based on the value of the contract (with different limits being 
applied),  confirmation  of  contract  concluded  by  phone  and    language  requirements  for 
distance and off-premises contracts; followed by simplified information requirements for 

44   Note that in Finland and Sweden, the rules on delivery are broadly similar under the CRD, but with some 

minor changes.  

45   It  should  be  noted  that  it  is  quite  difficult  to  determine  whether  the  rules  on  the  passing  of  risk  have 
strengthened consumer protection in some countries since they had broadly similar protection in previous 
national legislation (e.g. SE, DK, FI and the UK) but there is now further clarity with regard to responsibility 
for delivery costs in the case of returns. 

46   Initially,  the  Directive  was  transposed  using  the  text  of  the  Directive  itself.    Later  however,  Greek  Law 
2251/19994 was amended to abolish all fees charged by traders.  Therefore, Greek law currently provides 
enhanced protection to consumers in comparison to the Directive. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

repair and maintenance work and the need to confirm the contract concluded by phone.  
Although the low level of uptake of the regulatory options could suggest that regulatory 
fragmentation remains minimal, stakeholders to this study have been given a chance to 
provide their opinions on the impacts of these regulatory options on the effectiveness of 
the  CRD.  Their  opinions  are  given  in  the  subsequent  relevant  sections  below  (refer  to 
Section 7 on added value).  

49 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

3 

The  CRD  and  its  effectiveness  in  ensuring  consumer 
protection 

Overview of Section 

Effectiveness is concerned with assessing how far the CRD has made progress towards, 
or  has  already  achieved  its  objectives  (as  reflected  in  Figure  1-1).    Further 
considerations include analysing the reasons why EU regulatory intervention has (or has 
not) been successful to date and the extent to which barriers and obstacles remain that 
could  discourage  traders  from  selling  and  consumers  from  shopping  cross-border.  The 
list of evaluation questions related to effectiveness are set out in the next box47.  

•  How  effective  has  the  Directive  been  in  eliminating  the  obstacles  for  businesses 

carrying out economic activities in several EU Member States? 

•  What have been the impacts on consumer confidence and welfare? 

•  What factors influenced the achievements observed? 

•  What is the level of business compliance and how does this affect effectiveness? 

•  How effective has the enforcement of the Directive been? 

•  Have there been any unintended effects? 

•  To what extent did different factors influence the achievements observed? 

The different stakeholder surveys included questions relating to the effectiveness of the 
CRD  in  general  and  to  its  specific  provisions.    Some  of  the  questions  from  the 
questionnaires  are  given  in  the  next  box.  Some  of  these  were  close-ended  but  others 
were open questions so that the stakeholders could provide their views in greater depth 
(e.g. factors affecting effectiveness).  

Sample of questions from online survey related to effectiveness 

•  How  do  you  rate  the  level  of  protection  for  consumers  when  buying  domestically/in 

other EU countries? 

•  How do you rate the different provisions of the CRD? 

•  What are the main reasons for not selling cross-border? 

•  Are you aware of any factors hindering the effectiveness of the CRD? 

•  What is the level of consumer awareness of the CRD and its provisions? 

•  What is the level of traders’ awareness of the CRD and its obligations? 

In addition to the targeted consultation undertaken for this study on the effectiveness of 
the  Directive,  other  important  sources  of  data  have  been  used,  as  described  in  Section 
1.3.3. 

47   These  evaluation  questions  were  provided  in  the  original  proposal  and  based  on  the  Better  Regulation 

Guidelines on effectiveness. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

  Consumers and consumers associations’ views on effectiveness of the CRD 

The surveys asked about the effectiveness of the different provisions of the Directive, as 
well as the level of confidence in regard to the level of protection offered by the CRD in 
general.      In  particular,  consumers  were  asked  how  they  would  rate  the  level  of 
protection when purchasing domestically and cross-border.  Their responses are depicted 
in the following figures, Figures 3-1 and 3-2. 

Figure 3-1: Consumers views on the level of protection when purchasing a good 
or service when buying domestically  (Q24) 

Q24 How would you rate your level of ‘protection’ as a consumer 
when purchasing from your own country (N = 253)

Goods (253)

26%

44%

25%

3%

2%

Services (252)

14%

46%

31%

3%

6%

Digital content (252)

9%

40%

29%

10%

12%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

High level of protection

Medium level of protection

Low level of protection

No opinion

Don't know

Figure 3-2: Consumers views on the level of protection when purchasing a good 
or service when buying cross-border (Q24) 

Q24 In general, how would you rate your level of ‘protection’ as a 
consumer when purchasing from another EU country (N = 219)

Goods (218)

28%

31%

5%

9%

27%

Services (218)

18%

32%

6%

11%

33%

Digital content (217)

16%

27%

11%

14%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

High level of protection

Medium level of protection

Low level of protection

No opinion

Don't know

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Overall,  most  consumers  answering  the  survey  felt  that  the  level  of  protection  was 
moderate or high when buying goods and services domestically; similar responses were 
seen  for  consumers  buying  goods  and  services  cross-border48.    Interestingly,  digital 
content remains a key area where consumers do not feel as protected, particularly when 
buying domestically (refer to Figure 3-1). 

As  for  consumer  associations’  views,  over  60%  of  the  associations  answering  this 
question49  considered  the  CRD  to  be  either  quite  effective  or  very  effective  for  goods 
when  buying  domestically.  The  two  most  positive  provisions  according  to  consumer 
associations are the following: 

•  The RoW, where nearly three-quarters of respondents agreed that the provision had 
been  very  positive  when  buying  domestically  and  65%  agreed  that  it  was  very 
positive when buying cross-border; and  

•  The  pre-contractual 

for  distance  and  off-premises 
contracts. Most respondents also agreed that this provision had been either positive 
or very positive, both domestically and cross-border. 

information  requirements 

Their opinion on digital content was similar to that of consumers, with 43% of consumer 
associations  stating  that  the  CRD  has  not  been  effective  for  consumers  when  buying 
digital  content  domestically  and  30%  thought  it  was  not  effective  when  buying  cross-
border. Yet consumer associations’ views about the specific provisions on digital content 
are  generally  positive  (as  shown  in  Figure  3-3  and  3-4).  In  their  view,  the  low  level  of 
effectiveness  relates  both  to  the  lack  of  enforcement  and  difficulties  with  the 
implementation  of  specific  provisions  in  the  context  of  digital  content,  with  particular 
regard to the RoW. The following box provides some comments by consumers and their 
associations in relation to “digital content”.  

Example  comments  from  the  consumers  and  consumer  associations  on  digital 
content 

In the case of digital content, there is a lack of effective data protection. The laws are in 
order, but it is a matter of enforcement. 

lots  of  information  about  consumer  rights  for  goods  but  I  don't  know  very  much  about 
how this applies to digital content. 

digital content it is a little worse, because due to the fact that things are "untouchable" 

The  very  specific  and  difficult  exemption  of  the  right  of  withdrawal  concerning  digital 
content (f.e. downloads) 

In particular, the application of the right of withdrawal to digital content does not match 
the realities of the modern app economy.   

48   It should be noted that a higher % of respondents did not/could not answer or did not have an opinion on 

the level of protection for cross-border purchases. 

49   23  consumer  associations’  responses  were  received  for  this  question  concerning  level  of  protection  when 
buying domestically.  Fewer consumer associations responded to the same question regarding cross-border 
sales.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-3:  Consumer  associations’  rating  of  provisions  when  buying 
domestically (Q 6) 

Q6 How do you rate the provisions introduced by the CRD for consumers 
when buying domestically? (N = 23)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (23)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (23)

Digital content (23)

Formal requirements (23)

RoW  (23)

Exceptions from RoW (23)

4

RoW digital content (23)

Reimbursement (23)

Delivery & passing of risk (23)

Basic rate telephone (23)

Surcharges for means of payment (23)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (23)

Inertia selling (23)

Other (5)

13

10

8

10

17

8

7

9

6

10

11

11

14

3

9

11

11

7

8

10

10

4

11

8

9

2

1

2

1

5

4

7

4

3

1

1

2

3

1

2

2

1
1
1
1
1

1

1

1
1

1

2

3

7

2

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Very negative

Don’t know

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure  3-4:  Consumer  associations’  rating  of  provisions  when  buying    cross-
border (Q6) 

Q6 How do you rate the provisions introduced by the CRD for consumers 
when buying cross-border? (N = 20)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (20)
Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (19)
Digital content (20)
Formal requirements (20)
RoW  (20)
Exceptions from RoW (20)
RoW digital content (20)
Reimbursement (19)
Delivery & passing of risk (19)
Basic rate telephone (19)
Surcharges for means of payment (19)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (19)
Inertia selling (19)
Other (5)

9

10

7

8

3

5

4

7

6

13

5

10
9
9

7

2

9

8

6

1

1

1

7

9

5

9

1
5
7

6

7

1

4

1
1
3

2

3

1

1

2

3
1

1

1

1

1
1

1
1

4

2

2

3
1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1

2

2

1
1
1

1

1
1

1
1
1

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Very negative

Don’t know

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

53 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Additional  text  provided  by  consumer  associations  generally  indicated  positive  views 
towards the CRD in terms of consumer protection; however, concerns have been raised 
that  consumers  are  not  fully  aware  of  their  rights  with  regard  to  the  RoW.    Some 
associations  also  commented  that  there  are  too  many  exemptions  from  the  RoW  under 
Art. 16.   

Free  text  from:  Q3  -  How  effective  would  you  consider  the  Consumer  Rights 
Directive to be for consumer protection in respect of the following activities… 

The  RoW  is  quite  known  but  consumers  often  don't  know  exactly  the  rules.  They 
especially don't know the number of days (14) and when starts or expires the RoW.  

Consumer rights are only effective if the businesses fulfil their obligations and consumers 
know their rights and can enforce them properly.  

Free  text  from:  Q6  -  How  positively  or  negatively  do  you  rate  each  of  the 
following provisions introduced by the CRD for consumers when buying…? 

Generally  the  provisions  of  the  CRD  are  positive  for  consumers  but  they  have  to  be 
fulfilled  by  the  businesses  and  consumers  should  know  their  rights  ...  There  are  too 
many exceptions from the RoW.   There should be e.g. a RoW from contracts relating to 
leisure activities.  

Regarding the provision (art. 14(3)) that states that if the consumer exercises the RoW 
from  a  service  contract  or  for  the  supply  of  water,  gas,  or  electricity  […]  the  consumer 
shall be liable to pay the  trader  reasonable costs in accordance with Article 14(3), … in 
order  to  avoid  discrepancies  and  practical  problems  of  implementation  it  would  have 
been  valuable  to  establish  the  calculation  formula.    […]Also,  in  our  opinion,  it  is  highly 
criticisable the fact that the Directive establishes that if the total price is excessive, the 
proportionate  amount  shall  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  market  value.      But  the 
problem is what shall be considered excessive….  In relation to the formal requirements 
for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts,  we  understand  that  it  should  be  expressly 
provided  the  consequence  in  case  of  non-compliance  with  the  providing  of  the  copy  of 
the contract.  Although we consider positive the provisions regarding the reimbursement, 
we  find  negative  the  obligation  to  pay  for  diminished  value  of  goods  used  during  the 
withdrawal period.   

  Traders and traders associations’ views on the effectiveness of the CRD 

One  of  the  problems  that  the  Directive  aimed  to  address  was  the  fragmentation  of  the 
legislative 
internal  market  and  barriers 
requirements.  

to  cross-border 

from  different 

trade 

Traders  were  asked  about  the  main  reasons  for  not  selling  to  consumers  in  other  EU 
countries.  Nearly  half  of  the  respondents  replied  that  they  are  not  interested  in  selling 
cross-border.  Taking  into  account  the  fact  that  only  89  traders  responded  to  this 
question,  the  results  should  be  read  with  caution  but  it  is  still  worth  highlighting  that 
only  15  traders  (representing  17%  of  the  total)  indicated  differences  in  national 
consumer legislation as a reason for not selling cross-border. Findings from the interview 
programme  suggests  that  other  factors,  such  as  language/  cultural  differences,  and 
logistical  challenges  in  selling  cross-border  have  a  stronger  influence  than  regulatory 
fragmentation. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-5: Traders' reasons for not selling cross-border  (Q 5) 

Q5 What are your company’s reasons for not selling to consumers in 
other EU countries? (N = 89)

Not interested in selling cross-border (44)

49%

Language / cultural differences (17)

19%

Cost of market entry (20)

22%

Adapting and complying with different consumer
protection rules (15)

17%

Adapting and complying with different tax systems (18)

20%

Formal requirements (16)

18%

Logistical challenges (19)

21%

Problems in resolving cross-border conflicts (10)

11%

Problems with cross-border delivery (7)

8%

After-sales maintenance abroad (8)

9%

Don’t know (5)

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

NB Figure 3-5: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

For  those  that  do  trade  cross-border  (114  traders  responding50),  38%  responded  that 
there were no difficulties when trading  cross-border and 47% mentioned that there are 
some  minor  or  significant  difficulties.    Of  those  that  mentioned  that  there  are  some 
minor or significant difficulties, 71% agreed that differences in national legislation were 
one of the main difficulties when selling in other EU countries (32 traders indicated this 
as a difficulty).  This view was shared by the other stakeholder groups too.  For example, 
a respondent to the OPC commented that the CRD did not fully harmonise all aspects of 
distance selling, given that there are also a number of regulatory  choices  for MS under 
certain Articles, so traders still had to check for differences in national rules.   Generally 
however  differences  in  consumer  legislation  remaining  after  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive  are  not  considered  to  be  a  barrier  to  cross-border  trade,  owing  to  the  few 
responses confirming this. Thus, it can be concluded that the CRD has been successful in 
removing  barriers  to  trade  due  to  consumer  legislation,  due  to  its  full  harmonisation 
approach  based  on  survey  responses  referring  to  the  differences  in  regulatory  regimes 
not being a main obstacle to cross-border trade (only 17% of traders mentioned this as 
a reason for not selling cross-border). 

50   To  the  question:  Are  there  any  difficulties  faced by  your company  when selling  to  consumers  in other  EU 

countries? (Q12) 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-6:  Traders:  What  are  the  main  difficulties  when  selling  cross-border? 
(Q 15) 

Q13 Which are the main difficulties when selling to consumers in other 
EU countries? (N = 45)

Language / cultural differences (15)

Cost of market entry (14)

Adapting and complying with different consumer
protection rules (32)

Adapting and complying with different tax systems
(22)

Formal requirements (22)

Logistical challenges (21)

Problems in resolving cross-border conflicts (13)

Problems with cross-border delivery (14)

15

14

13

14

32

22

22

21

After-sales maintenance abroad (6)

6

Don’t know (1)

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

NB Figure 3-6: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

  National competent authorities view on effectiveness 

National competent authorities were asked to rate the different provisions of the CRD for 
consumer  protection.  Figure  3-7  shows  their  responses.  Similar  to  the  consumer 
associations,  national  competent  authorities  believed  that  provisions  on  the  pre-
contractual  information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises  and  RoW  are  either 
positive or very positive for consumers. Their views on the exemptions from the RoW as 
well  as  withdrawal  from  digital  content  contracts  are  not  as  positive;  this  was  also 
highlighted in many of the interviews.   

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-7:  National  competent  authorities’  views  on  CRD  provisions  for 
consumers (Q 23) 

Q23 How do you rate the following CRD provisions for consumers  in 
your country? (N = 38)

Pre-contract: on premises (38)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (38)

Digital content (38)

Formal requirements (38)

11

11

18

17

18

18

5

2

2

16

1

1

2

5

1

3

16

2

1

2

RoW (38)

23

10

1

1

1

2

Exceptions from RoW (38)

RoW digital content (38)

Delivery & passing of risk (38)

Reimbursement (38)

7

6

5

Basic rate telephone (38)

8

Unjustified surcharges (38)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (37)

Inertia selling (38)

13

12

15

18

14

18

20

6

2

1

2

7

6

1

2

4

1

3

1

2

1

2

3

6

5

1

2

1

1

5

1

3

3

20

17

18

17

11

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact Negative

Very negative

Don’t know

No opinion

MS’  competent  authorities  were  asked  whether  they  had  had  any  difficulties  in 
interpreting  any  of  the  provisions  within  the  CRD  that  may  explain  the  lack  of 
effectiveness.  Figure  3-8  details  their  responses.  Most  of  the  difficulties  have  been 
encountered  in  the  transposition  of  Art.  16,  i.e.  exceptions  from  the  RoW,  and  also  in 
relation to ensuring the provision of access to basic telephone rate once contracts have 
been  concluded, i.e. Art. 21.   The CRD does not define basic rate for  the application of 
Art.  21  on  communication  by  phone.    As  a  result,  following  a  recent  request  for  a 
preliminary  ruling  from  the  Regional  Court  in  Stuttgart  (Germany)  to  interpret  the 
Concept of ‘basic rate’, the opinion of the advocate general only given in November 2016 
has been the following: 

where a trader operates a telephone line for the purpose of consumers contacting 
the  trader  by  telephone  in  relation  to  contracts  concluded  with  the  trader,  a 
consumer  calling  the  after-sales  service  of  the  trader  must  not  incur  charges 
higher  than  the  normal  costs  which  the  consumer  would  incur  for  calling  a 
standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number. 

The judgment issued on 2 March 2017 by the European Court of Justice stated that the 
concept  of  “basic  rate”  "must  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  call  charges  relating  to  a 

57 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

contract concluded with a trader to a telephone helpline operated by the trader may not 
exceed  the  cost  of  a  call  to  a  standard  geographic  landline  or  mobile  telephone  line. 
Provided that that limit is respected, the fact that the relevant trader makes or does not 
make a profit through that telephone helpline is irrelevant". 

Figure 3-8: Competent authorities – How do you rate transposition of the 
provisions..(0= no problems, 5= significant problems) (Q4) 

Q4 In a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 is no problems with transposition  and 
5 is significant problems with transposition, how do you rate the 
following provisions of the CRD? (N = 18)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (18)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (18)

9

8

Digital content (18)

4

Formal requirements (18)

RoW  (18)

Exceptions from RoW (17)

Reimbursement (18)

Delivery & passing of risk (18)

6

5

12

8

10

8

5

4

5

8

1

3

1

4

Basic rate telephone (17)

3

5

2

1

Surcharges for means of payment (18)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (18)

Inertia selling (18)

9

8

10

3

6

Other (4)

3

4

2

3

1

3

2

3

3

2

6

5

5

1

3

3

1

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0 No problems

1

2

3

4

5 Significant problems

More information on specific difficulties was also provided, in relation to pre-contractual 
information  and  the  exceptions  from  both  the  pre-contractual information  requirements 
and the RoW, also for other contracts than off-premises and distance contracts, and for 
digital content.  Some stakeholders highlighted that different obligations for the different 
type  of  contracts,  on-premises  and  off-premises  and  distance,  can  raise  uncertainty;  a 
view  which  was  shared  during  the  Consumer  Summit.  Their  opinions  on  the  problems 
with interpretation of the provisions from the on-survey responses are given in the next 
box51.  

51   The  opinions  from  stakeholders  are  given  as  provided  in  the  survey  responses  and  do  not  reflect  the 

opinion of the consultants or the EC.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Competent authorities’ problems with interpreting CRD provisions (Q4) 

Unclear is the exemption for day-to-day transactions (Art 5 para 3). For instance: buying 
a CD could be interpreted as such a day-to-day transaction - the trader would then not 
be obliged to inform about functionality and interoperability (lit g and f).   

The omission of pre-contractual information for instance concerning additional costs (Art 
5)  doesn’t  lead  to  any  sanctions.  Whereas  in  off-premises  and  distance  contracts  the 
consequence  is  clear:  consumers  don’t  have  to  carry  the  costs  when  they  have  not 
received  the  relevant  information  in  an  adequate  way.  A  clarification  for  on-premises 
contracts is necessary.   

Art 5 …It should be clarified that the trader is obliged to provide all contact possibilities.   

RoW and exceptions: In practice, the trader’s information obligations when the consumer 
has no right to withdraw from the contract can be misleading for consumers. The trader 
firstly  has  to  inform  consumers  about  their  RoW  and  secondly  to  inform  that  in  this 
concrete  case  the  consumer  has  no  right.    We  would  appreciate  a  simplification  of  this 
information procedure, of course securing a high level of consumer protection.   

The  wide  range  of  exceptions  of  the  right  of  withdrawal,  now  applicable  to  both  off-
premises  and  distance  contracts,  therefore  lowered  the  level  of  consumer  protection  in 
the area of off-premises and has consequently led to two different “withdrawal systems” 
for off-premises contracts in Austria.  The list of exceptions is too extensive.   

Unclear terms:  “urgent repairs or maintenance”, “basic rate” “the supply of goods made 
to  the  consumer’s  specifications  or  clearly  personalized”  –  are  modular  concepts  to  be 
subsumed?      “service  contracts  after  the  service  has  been  fully  performed  if  the 
performance has begun with the consumer’s prior express consent, …”  

The  information  obligation  concerning  the  total  price  (Art  6/1  e  and  Art  22)  can  be 
problematic and needs to be clarified.     

We  had  problems  with  application  of  some  provisions  of  CRD  in  specific  sectors  (e.g. 
supply of water, gas, electricity or district heating) due to the peculiarities of these type 
of contracts and their conclusion.  

We  have  had  problems  concerning  the  exact  meaning  of  the  basic  rate  requirement 
provided in Article 21 of the CRD. Namely we have had questions whether the aim of this 
provision  was  to  exclude  the  trader  from  profiting  from  charging  the  consumer  more 
than the basic rate or if the aim was to avoid a situation where the consumer had to pay 
more than the basic rate even if the trader does not get any direct benefits  from using 
such a number, only the telecommunications service provider receives higher fees. 

Article  concerning  the  basic  rate  (Article  21)  was  the  most  demanding  Article  in  this 
regard, since the Article was not discussed in the Council working group and at the same 
time the  effect  of the Article seemed to be  significant for the markets depending on its 
interpretation.   

Concerning  contracts  on  digital  content,  there  is  still  no  common  understanding  among 
MS  as  to  the  question  of  whether  free  digital  content  contracts  are  covered  by  the 
provisions  of  the  directive  or  not.  In  the  context  of  Articles  14  and  16,  the  rules  on 
digital content and those on services are incoherent.   There is no rule on the passing of 
risk when goods are returned to the seller by the consumer.  The notion of "basic rate" is 
not defined in Union law. 

Contracts  concluded  at  fairs  and  fairs  should  automatically  be  contracts  concluded 
outside premises. 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Those  providing  position  papers  for  the  OPC  shared  their  views  on  the  transposition  of 
the CRD.  A respondent commented that the process of implementing the CRD had been 
different  in  different  MS,  with  some  having  a  smooth  process  and  others  encountering 
issues relating to the interpretation and application of the Directive (sometimes even at 
regional or local levels).   A number of responses showed uncertainty with definitions, in 
particular  whether  contracts  were  classed  as  on-  or  off-premises  and  hence  their 
implications in terms of traders’ obligations to provide information, the RoW, etc.  

Article 2(9) – definition of off-premises contracts 

The definition under Art. 2(9) has caused some concern regarding exhibitions and trade 
fairs, which are clearly retail settings. However, if an exhibitor exhibits for the first time 
or  occasionally,  then  they  may  be  exempt  from  certain  provisions  of  the  CRD  on  off-
premises  contracts  (such  as  the  RoW  and  pre-contractual  information  requirements). 
Some  enforcement  authorities  have  taken  a  pragmatic  approach.  In  the  UK,  there  has 
been  some  concern  from  major  exhibition  organisers  that  the  Directive  (and  UK 
legislation)  applies  the  test  as  to  whether  the  trader  has  operated  at  the  venue  on  a 
usual basis.  This means that a trader attending the exhibition for the first time may not 
fall  within  the  definition  whereas  a  regular  exhibitor  would.    In  the  views  of  an 
interviewee  from  a  trade  association,  these  are  clearly  not  off-premises  contracts  and 
consumers  would  not  expect  to  be  given  cancellation  rights  when  visiting  an  exhibition 
or trade fair. 

ECCs’ views on the effectiveness of the CRD 

ECCs were also asked a similar question with regard to the specific provisions and their 
effectiveness52.Figure 3-9 presents the responses received to question 7. Similar to the 
other stakeholder groups, the RoW is considered as one of the most effective provisions, 
but  the  ban  on  pre-ticked  boxes  is  also  considered  to  be  either  a  very  effective  or  an 
effective  provision  in  ensuring  consumer  protection  cross-border.  The  provision  on  pre-
contractual  information  requirements  is  not  considered  to  be  very  effective,  but  this  is 
reported to be due to frequent instances of non-compliance and a lack of enforcement.  

52   As  ECC’s  primary  remit  is  to  provide  advice  and  information  when  shopping  cross-border  in  Europe,  their 

responses are mainly relevant to cross-border trade.  

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-9:  ECCs’  views  on  problems  with  implementation  and  enforcement 
(Q7) 

Q7 On a scale of 0 to 5, where 5 is very effective (no problems) and 0 is 
not effective, how do you rate the following at ensuring consumer 
protection across borders? (N = 26)

RoW period (25)

13

Ban pre-ticked boxes (25)

Inertia selling (23)

Formal requirements (25)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (25)

Surcharges for means of payment (25)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (25)

Basic rate telephone (25)

Exceptions from RoW (25)

Other (6)

Digital content (25)

Delivery & passing of risk (26)

4

6

10

9

6
7
8

9
8

6
5
4
4
3
2

2
7

6

1
1

7

4

8

5

9

7

9
9

2
9
11

2
3

7

2
3
2
3

5
7

5

2

1

1
2
2
1
3
2
1
1

1

2

5

6

4
1

3
1

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5 Very effective

4

3

2

1

0 Not effective

Free text from: Q7 – In a scale of 0 to 5 where 5 is very effective (namely no 
problems with implementation and enforcement) and 0 is not effective, how 
will you rate the following in terms of ensuring consumer protection across 
borders? 

Exemptions for the RoW (customized products) in case of the purchase of furniture. It is 
a  question  of  interpretation  of  those  provisions.  Is  the  product  customized  if  you  can 
select  a  certain  colour  and  the  fabric?    There  are  many  court  rulings  regarding  this 
issue. 

One  of  the  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  all  contracts  (whether  the 
contract  is  concluded  at  distance,  off-premises  or  other),  is  to  disclose  “the  identity  of 
the trader, such as his trading name”. In our view, the current formulation in the CRD is 
not  effective,  as  we  have  seen  cases  where  consumers  and  enforcement  authorities 
alike find difficulties in identifying the LEGAL identity of the trader; there are instances 
where  the  name  and  address  provided  may  suffice  to  comply  with  the  CRD,  yet  these 
details  may  be  insufficient  to  take  legal  action  against  the  trader  concerned,  if  the 
latter’s  actual  legal  identity  (whether  a  natural  person,  body  corporate  or  other)  is 
different  and  is  not  disclosed.  In  our  view,  more  should  be  done  to  ensure  that 
consumers are provided with the trader’s LEGAL identity, so that consumers can verify 
the  relevant  details  before  entering  into  a  transaction  or,  if  required,  seek  effective 
remedies from the relevant legal person. 

All  of  these  measures  are  good  measures  in  terms  of  consumer  protection,  but  to  be 
really effective they need strong enforcement when a company doesn't respect them 

The confirmation button has not proved to be precise enough. Based on our experience 
it  works  well  in  the  traditional  e-commerce  but  poorly  with  subscription  traps. 
Enforcement actions are not effective. 

Effectiveness  is  hindered  by  the  non-compliance  of  traders  and  a  lack  of  effective 

61 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

deterrents.  

Ineffective enforcement/lack of enforcement action.   

No efficient checks to determine whether traders are complying with the CRD 

Not a specific mechanism to achieve a prompt remedy for consumers without the need 
for public enforcement involvement.  

There  is  a  need  for  clear  set  of  remedies  in  favour  of  the  consumer  where  their  rights 
are breached. 

Factors affecting effectiveness  

In spite of the improvements brought about by the CRD (such as giving consumers the 
confidence to buy cross-border and return goods under the same conditions as provided 
when  shopping  in  their  domestic  market),  there  still  remain  barriers  to  cross-border  e-
commerce.  These  however  vary  according  to  the  type  of  contract.    Indeed,  consumer 
associations responding to the survey indicated that for  cross-border  activities the CRD 
was more effective in relation to the provision of goods (43% thought the CRD was very 
or  quite  effective)  than  services  (34%  thought  the  CRD  was  very  or  quite  effective)  or 
digital contact (30% thought the CRD was very or quite effective).  These results agree 
with the latest Consumer Market Scoreboard which concluded that  despite the fact that 
improvements  are  more  visible  for  services  markets  than  for  goods  markets,  the  latter 
continue to be assessed more favourably than services markets (CEC, 2016).  

Stakeholders were asked about any factors hindering the effectiveness of the CRD.  Over 
60%  of  consumer  and  trade  associations  indicated  that  they  were  aware  of  factors 
hindering  the  effectiveness  of  the  CRD.  The  most  recurrent  factors  highlighted  to  be 
hindering the CRD’s effectiveness include:  

• 

• 

• 

A lack of awareness and understanding among consumers and traders of consumer 
rights (and obligations);  

Issues of compliance by traders, particularly with some provisions; and 

Issues  relating  to  enforcement,  particularly  cross-border  enforcement  (although 
there are mechanisms in place such as the CPC Network to facilitate cooperation and 
successful cross-border enforcement, in reality this is time-consuming and costly).  

The  above  factors  deserve  further  investigation.    Additional  information  is  provided  in 
the following sub-sections, where the findings from this evaluation are triangulated with 
the  findings  from  other  related  studies  that  were  listed  in  the  introductory  part  of  this 
Section (Section 1.3.3).   

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-10:  Consumer  and  trade  associations  -  factors  hindering  the 
effectiveness of the CRD (Q22) 

Q22 Are you aware of any factors hindering the effectiveness of the 
CRD? (N = 45)

Consumer association

73%

18%

9%

Trade association

65%

13%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Yes

No

Don’t know

Free  text  from  ECC  Survey:  Q8  -  If  you  have  noted  that  some  of  the  above 
provisions have not been effective, what are, in your opinion, the main factors 
hindering the effectiveness? 

Enforcement  procedure  takes  too  much  time….Too  much  room  for  the  trader  and 
interpretation of the terms. 

Lack of enough strong enforcement actions. 

Lack of specific remedy for the consumer in some cases. Whilst a breach of the CRD may 
lead  to  public  enforcement  action,  it  is  not  always  clear  what  the  remedy  for  affected 
consumers  is.  In  our  view,  a  clear  set  of  remedies  in  favour  of  consumers  where  their 
rights  are  not  respected  would  facilitate  consumers’  access  to  redress,  incentivise 
trader's voluntary compliance, and reduce the need for public enforcement. 

There is no efficient check whether traders comply with the CRD.   Enforcement Bodies 
and  Consumer  Protection  Authorities  should  better  review  the  implementation  of  the 
CRD (test cases, injunction proceedings)   

National resources - national priorities maybe put emphasis on focusing on the problems 
encountered  on  the  home  market  operators.      -  time-consuming  tasks  for  enforcement 
authorities /the CPC and in-efficient sanctions   -traders do not respect the law  

Free text from Consumer and Trade Associations Survey: Q22  - Are you  aware 
of any factors hindering the effectiveness of the CRD? 

Trade Associations  

At this time there isn’t a clear overview of the transposition of the CRD. As such the CRD 
allows some individual MS approaches to the transposition which reduce the benefits of 
the  Directive.  The  CRD  also  is  very  granular  which  lead  to  extensive  debates  over  its 
interpretation and to the need for EU Commission guidance. 

Different national laws and national obligations in member states alongside the European 
consumer legislation still are a hampering factor ... The CRD not being fully harmonised 
in  all  parts  ….    The  mere  complexity  of  the  consumer  framework  is  a  hindering  factor 
since  it  is  a  challenge  for  businesses  to  comply  with  all  different  obligations  in  an 
effective way. The amount of information businesses are obliged to give to the consumer 
before  concluding  a  contract,  due  to  different  legal  acts,  is  massive  and  a  heavy 
administrative  burden.  The  majority  of  consumers  are  not  interested  in  all  that 

63 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

information before purchasing a product. … 

Full harmonisation in the key areas of the trader-consumer relationship which would be a 
major  step  forward  to  decrease  fragmented  consumer  protection  rules  across  the 
European Union.     EU consumer law needs better implementation and enforcement and 
its goals cannot be achieved if there are no effective remedies available to the consumer. 
It  is  very  important  to  exploit  the  potential  for  enforcement  cooperation  of  national 
authorities  in  Europe.  The  review  of  the  CPC  Regulation  is  the  tool  which  could  help 
supporting it.   

The provisions are too complex and burdensome, especially for SME: Such provisions are 
designed  for  big  traders  but  do  not  take  the  Think-Small-First-  Principle  of  the  Small 
Business Act into account at all.   

Consumer Associations  

The willing of companies and sellers in general to respect the provisions of the directive, 
as  there  is  no  power  for  the  national  authorities  to  force  anyone  to  deal  with  those 
provisions,  except  from  the  courts,  where  the  costs  are  not  consumer  friendly  in  every 
case. 

There  are  a  lot  of  exemptions  of  the  CRD.  From  the  consumers'  point  of  view  the  CRD 
should  for  example  also  be  applicable  to  contracts  for  social  services  or  healthcare  and 
for package travels  or  passenger transport services.   Furthermore the CRD can  only be 
effective if the consumers can enforce their rights. Court proceedings are generally very 
time-consuming, costly and therefore risky. 

Poor  spread  of  information,  insufficient  education  and  information  of  business  and 
consumers. 

On this respect, we have to say that the level of harmonization required by the Directive 
has brought some problems for those MS that had already established quite a good level 
of protection for consumers regarding, for instance, distance and off-premises contracts.  

Limited national authorities' ability to cope, at a coordinated EU-level, with malpractices 
or  infringements  by  multinational  companies  operating  through  subsidiaries  or  other 
forms  of  presence  in  different  EU  countries.    Discrimination  regarding  to  consumers' 
access  to  rights  prescribed  by  EU  law,  e.g.  access  to  warranty  provisions,  based  on 
criteria linked to nationality or residence of consumers. 

3.6.1  Level of awareness & understanding of consumer rights 

The evaluation of the EC consumer rights awareness campaign found that the campaign 
messages  for  consumers  were  relevant  and  well-received,  and  thus  effective  in  raising 
and enhancing awareness of consumer rights.  However, it was noted that the message 
targeted  at  SMEs  regarding  the  benefits  of  respecting  consumer  rights  was  not  as 
effective  and  traders  were  rarely  able  to  quote  specific  rights  relating  to  particular 
situations.   Recommendations  made  in  the  evaluation  suggested  that  future  campaigns 
and  information  should  focus  on  the  obligations  that  traders  have  to  comply  with 
consumer rights.  

Moreover, the evaluation highlighted that, although stakeholders and other Commission 
services  (such  as  the  ECCs)  were  providing  consumers  and  traders  with information  on 
consumer rights within Europe, there was little evidence of similar campaigns at national 
level.   Other  sources  have  however  suggested  otherwise.    The  online  survey  asked 
national  competent  authorities  about  whether  they  were  undertaking  awareness-raising 
campaigns at national levels. Almost all respondents (90%, 31 respondents) noted that 
awareness-raising  and  information  campaigns  were  being  carried  out  by  national 
enforcement  authorities  (See  Figure  3-11).    Similarly,  the  report  by  the  EESC  on  the 

64 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

evaluation  of  the  CRD  concluded  that  interviewees  in  the  fact  finding  missions53  had 
been  more  frequently  exposed  to  information  campaigns  conducted  by  their  national 
authorities  on  consumer  rights  (68%  of  the  54  respondents)  and  less  so  to  those 
conducted by the EC (38% of the total). 

Figure 3-11: National competent authorities awareness-raising and information 
campaign(s) for consumers and traders (Q 21) 

Q21 Which specific consumer rights and trader’s obligations have you 
emphasised in information and communications activities? (N = 31)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (25)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (30)

Digital content (24)

Formal requirements (26)

RoW  (30)

Exceptions from RoW (29)

RoW digital content (24)

Delivery & passing of risk (23)

Basic rate telephone (23)

Surcharges for means of payment (20)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (22)

Inertia selling (22)

25

24

26

30

30

29

24

23

23

20

22

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

NB Figure 3-11: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

The  additional  information  provided  by  national  competent  authorities  indicated  that  a 
wide  range  of  awareness-raising  activities  were  undertaken;  the  most  popular  of  which 
appeared to be the development of written guidance (including brochures, leaflets, press 
releases  and  tailored  guidance  documents),  providing  information  about  changes  in  EU 
legislation via websites, and lectures (including seminars and conferences).  In addition 
to these, other activities were also undertaken to reach less active audiences (i.e. those 
not seeking specific information about the CRD) via social media, national TV/radio, and 
information desks at shopping centres and individual outlets.  Meetings, training events 
and workshops were also undertaken to provide specific and tailored information to key 
stakeholders.  The  information  campaigns  tended  to  focus  on  making  consumers  more 
aware  of  their  overall  rights  (i.e.  the  CRD  generally)  and  key  areas  such  as  RoW  and 
reimbursements/refunds;  the  information  provided  to  traders  was  more  focused  on 

53 Fact finding missions were conducted in Belgium,  Italy, Spain, Poland and Latvia.  

65 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

communicating  the  obligations  of  traders  under  the  CRD  when  selling  (e.g.  information 
requirements, ensuring that means of payment are clear, ensuring that pre-ticked boxes 
are no longer used, ensuring access for consumers to a standard rate phone number). In 
terms  of  interest  in  the  different  provisions  of  the  CRD  among  consumers  and  traders, 
the RoW and developing an understanding of the formal requirements appears to be  of 
most  interest  (NB:  formal  requirements  in  this  context  relate  to  off-premises  and 
distance contracts).   

Figure  3-12:  National  competent  authorities:  Which  provisions  and  sub-
provisions have been of greatest interest to consumers and traders? (Q 22) 

Q22 Which provisions and sub-provisions have been of greatest 
interest to …? (N = 26)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (17)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (19)

17

19

Digital content (11)

11

Formal requirements (24)

RoW  (24)

Exceptions from RoW (22)

24

24

22

RoW digital content (13)

13

Delivery & passing of risk (17)

17

Basic rate telephone (14)

Surcharges for means of payment (15)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (13)

Inertia selling (14)

14

15

13

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NB Figure 3-12: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

Thus,  given  90%  of  responding  national  competent  authorities  had  undertaken 
awareness  rising  activities,  as  highlighted  above,  it  would  be  expected  that  there  is  a 
moderate  to  high  level  of  awareness,  especially  with  respect  of  some  of  the  key 
provisions  of  the  CRD,  such  as  the  RoW  (Art.  9)  and  pre-contractual  information 
requirements under Art. 6 for distance and off-premises contracts.   

The EESC’s study concluded that: 

In  general,  consulted  parties  have  confirmed  that  they  are  sufficiently  aware  of 
the  national  legislation  implementing  the  directive  as  well  as  of  the  national 
proceedings to enforce it, in particular with regard to pre-contractual information 
and the right to withdrawal. Yet a large number of consumers and SMEs are still 

66 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

not  aware  of  the  directive’s  specific  provisions  (i.e.  recitals  and  articles  of  the 
directive)  because  the  legislation  is  too  complicated  and  technical  for  the 
consumer.  Training  initiatives  and  measures  for  disseminating  the  substance  of 
the Directive and the rights deriving from it are deemed necessary. 

Several  respondents  to  the  OPC  also  commented  on  the  value  of  the  interpretative 
guidance  on  the  CRD54  (see  box  below).    Generally,  the  guidance  was  felt  to  be  very 
helpful in providing practical examples as to how the Directive should apply. It was also 
seen as being useful in clarifying grey areas in relation to the Directive’s intended scope. 
For instance, the guidance clarifies that free digital content should be covered within the 
CRD’s scope since, contrary to the definition of sales and service contracts, the Directive 
does  not  mention  'payment'  for  the  supply  of  public  utilities  and  online  digital  content. 
Nevertheless,  this  is  not  explicitly  explained  in  the  CRD,  and  might  create  some 
ambiguity.   

Examples  of  comments  on  DG  JUST  Interpretative  guidance  from  the  open 
consultation  

Stakeholder  “supports  the  use  of  guidance/interpretation  guidelines  as  tools  to  reach  a 
more uniform interpretation of EU law” 

“The  adoption  of  guidance  documents  by  the  Commission,  both  for  the  UCP  and  the 
Consumers’ Rights directives, is a useful tool to increase awareness of undertakings and 
consumers.  Guidance by the Commission can also promote a greater convergence in the 
interpretation and application of the substantive rules at the national level.” 

The  guidance  should  “clarify  that  the  withdrawal  period  in  a  service  contract  will  start 
from the moment it begins to be rendered, including any free trial period, and not at the 
time it converts into a paid service” 

In relation to the right of withdrawal, “…there is no clear guidance as to how to calculate 
the diminished value.  It is also unclear whether the traders can deduct any of the costs 
related to the examination and refurnishing of the goods in the cases where traders can 
actually resell the goods” 

“Perhaps Commission could provide guidance on the calculation of diminished value.” 

The  guidance  should  “clarify  that  customers  should  be  able  to  waive  their  rights  of 
withdrawal  at  the  same  time  as  they  enter  into  the  contract/placing  order  for  digital 
content”. 

A  further  response  raised  concerns  over  the  definition  of  off-premises  contracts,  and 
whether the term “regularly” had been adequately defined in the guidance.   

The  results  in  relation  to  awareness  of  these  and  other  provisions  are  presented 
separately for consumers and traders below. 

3.6.1.1  Consumers’ awareness and understanding of CRD and its provisions 

Consumer associations were asked about the level of consumer awareness in relation to 
the CRD in their country; 57% of respondents noted a low level of awareness, and only 
4% noted that the level of awareness was high (Figure 3-13). 

54   DG Justice Guidance Document concerning Directive 2011/83/EU […]- DG Justice (2014) 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-13: Consumer associations’ views on the level of consumer awareness 
(Q4) 

Q4 What is the level of consumer awareness about the CRD in 
your country? (N = 23)

4%

39%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

High levels of awareness

Medium level of awareness

Low level of awareness

The behavioural study reported on the understanding of the information requirements by 
consumers.  In general, respondents indicated that they understood the information and 
were able to use it. 

When  asked  about  the  level  of  awareness  in  regard  to  specific  provisions,  Figure  3-14, 
the lowest level of awareness was reported to be on digital content, the exemptions from 
the  RoW,  the  RoW  for  digital  content  and  delivery  and  the  passing  of  risk.  Conversely, 
the level of awareness of the RoW in general was considered to be moderate by  50% of 
the  respondents  and  high  by  9%  of  the  respondents.    The  evaluation  of  the  consumer 
rights  awareness  campaign  shared  similar  conclusions  about  the  RoW,  with  very  few 
people in a survey thinking that they had no rights to return an item and/or get a refund 
if they changed their mind. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-14: Consumer associations’ views on consumer awareness on specific 
requirements (Q 5) 

Q5 What is the level of consumer awareness in your country with regard to 
the specific requirements of the CRD? (N = 23)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (23)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (23)

Digital content (23)

Formal requirements (23)

RoW  (22)

Exceptions from RoW (23)

RoW digital content (23)

1

1

1

2

Reimbursement (23)

2

Delivery & passing of risk (23)

Basic rate telephone (23)

Surcharges for means of payment (23)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (23)

1

1

1

1

10

10

5

10

11

4

5

4

5

7

10

8

Inertia selling (23)

2

11

13

13

17

12

9

17

17

17

16

13

12

11

9

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

High

Medium

Low

Don't know

However,  there  appears  to  be  a  lack  of  understanding  with  regard  to  specific  articles.  
For instance, Art. 9 defines the moment from which the 14 day cooling-off period starts, 
depending on the type of contract involved.  It has been noted by stakeholders consulted 
under  this  study  that  the  start  of  the  14  day  RoW  period  is  not  always  clear  for  a 
consumer to use when the contract involves both sales and the provision of services. In 
addition,  the  fact  that  many  off-premises  contracts  for  home  improvements  have 
elements of a customised nature, e.g. a bathroom, a kitchen, means that some of these 
products are also bespoke and the RoW may not apply55 but consumers are less aware of 
this  exception.  A  further  difficulty  is  most  traders  will  deliver  the  goods  relating  to  an 
installation gradually as the job progresses.  In practice, this means that once the work 
has started, there are practical difficulties in consumers exercising their RoW.  

55 According to Article 16 (c) related to exemptions form the RoW 

69 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Article 16(c)  Exceptions from the RoW 

Art.  16(c)  relates  to  exceptions  from  the  RoW  for  goods  made  to  the  consumers’ 
specifications and personalised for distance and off-premises contracts.  E.g. Art. 16(c) 
is  of  particular  relevance  to  the  double-glazing  industry  and  sellers  of  custom-made 
chairs  for  consumers  with  disabilities  or  frailties  due  to  their  age.    Both  industries 
predominantly  enter  into  contracts  in  consumers’  homes  and,  sometimes,  consumers 
are left with no right to cancel these products. Queries over the exact meaning of what 
is  ‘bespoke’  seem  to  have  generated  a  growing  interest  among  e-retailers  to  claim  the 
exemption for their goods.  The CRD does not provide the level of clarity that is needed 
on  this  topic.  This  may  cause  problems  with  both  off-premises  and  distance  sales;  an 
example provided was a web based bike shop (selling bespoke bikes).    

Further clarity is needed on the application of the ‘leisure exemption’ from cancellation in 
article 16(l).  While the Directive is clear on concert tickets, hotel rooms etc. the wording 
is quite broad and open to interpretation.  There is a risk that the lack of preciseness of 
the  wording  means  that  arguments  can  be  made  that  the  ‘leisure  exemption’  applies 
much more widely than it was originally intended.   

Some  major  trade  associations  in  the  UK  require  their  members  to  offer  a  7-day,  from 
date  of  contract,  withdrawal  period  because  they  are  aware  of  the  risks  to  consumers 
(and to the reputation of their industry) caused by the Article 16(c) exception.  

Although  some  stakeholders  accept  that  exemptions  from  the  RoW  are  appropriate, 
some stakeholders advocated that sales contracts falling within Art. 16(c) and (f) should 
have a 14-day, from the date of contract, withdrawal period.   

The online survey also asked consumers about specific provisions to test their awareness 
and  understanding,  including  the  RoW  (Art.9)  and  inertia  selling  (Art.27).    Their 
response  on  the  RoW  is  shown  in  Figure  3-15.    The  figure  shows  a  moderate  to  high 
level  of  awareness  about  the  RoW,  with  53%  answering  correctly  but  29%  noting  that 
the RoW depended on the type of electronic product being bought and 10% noting that 
the RoW did not apply.  

Figure  3-15:  Consumers:  Suppose  you  ordered  a  new  electronic  product  by 
post,  phone  or  the  Internet,  do  you  think  you  have  the  right  to  return  the 
product 14 days after its delivery and get your money back, without giving any 
reason? (Q 22) 

Q22 If you ordered a new electronic product by post, phone or the 
Internet, do you have the right to return the product 14 days after its 
delivery and get your money back, without giving any reason? (N = 
252)

Total

53.2%

9.9%

29.4%

7.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes

No

It depends on the product

Don’t know

70 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Concerning  inertia  selling,  the  awareness  test  showed  that  consumers  are  only  partly 
aware  of  this  provision.  The  responses  were  split  almost  equally  between  respondents 
stating  consumers  are  not  obliged  to  pay  the  invoice  provided  that  they  return  the 
product, and those stating consumers are not obliged to  pay the invoice and return the 
product (see Figure 3-16). Very few consumers responded that consumers are obliged to 
pay when receiving unordered products.  

Figure 3-16: Consumers: Imagine you receive two educational DVDs by post 
that you have not ordered together with a 20 € invoice for the DVDs. Are you 
obliged to pay the invoice? Q23 

Q23 Imagine you receive two educational DVDs by post that you 
have not ordered together with a 20 € invoice for the DVDs. Are 
you obliged to pay the invoice? (N = 253)

47%

45%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No, and you are not obliged to return the DVDs

No, provided you return the DVDs

Yes, you are obliged to pay

Don't know

The  level  of  enquiries  to  consumer  associations  and  national  competent  authorities  can 
also  be  a  good  indicator  as  to  the  level  of  awareness  and  understanding  among 
consumers. Of the national competent authorities responding to the online survey, 40% 
responded  that  they  had  not  noticed  an  increase  in  the  number  of  enquiries  by 
consumers  with  regard  to  domestic  purchases  since  the  CRD  was  implemented.  Only 
30% had noticed a moderate to large increase in the number of enquiries by consumers 
(from  a  total  of  30  answers).    When  asked  about  the  specific  aspects  that  consumers 
have  enquired  about  when  buying  domestically,  see  Figure  3-17,  the  most  frequently 
mentioned  provisions  are  those  related  to  the  RoW.    Fewer  national  authorities 
responded  to  the  questions  concerning  consumers’  enquires  when  buying  cross-border 
(Figure  3-18),  with  only  13  national  competent  authorities  replying.  Their  responses 
show a similar pattern.  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-17:  National  competent  authorities’  feedback  on  consumers enquiries 
in the last 2 years when buying domestically (Q8 ) 

Q8 Which consumer rights covered by the CRD have consumers 
enquired about in the last 2 years (domestic)? (N = 24)

Pre-contract: on premises (22)

4

Pre-contract: distance & off premises (22)

7

14

13

Digital content (21)

Formal requirements (22)

1
1

RoW (24)

Exceptions from RoW (23)

RoW digital content (22)

2

Procedures for RoW (23)

Reimbursement (23)

Delivery & passing of risk (23)

4

Basic rate telephone (21)

Unjustified surcharges (23)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (23)

2
2
2

10

10

13

17

15

13

15

10
12

14

10

8

16

Inertia selling (23)

6

11

Other (4)

2

4

4

2

2

3

1

5

3

7

7

7

7

9
9

7

6

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Often

Rarely

Never

Figure  3-18:  National  competent  authorities’  feedback  on  consumers enquiries 
in the last 2 years when buying cross border (Q 8) 

Q8 Which consumer rights covered by the CRD have consumers enquired 
about in the last 2 years (cross border)? (N = 13)

Pre-contract: on premises (13)
Pre-contract: distance & off premises (13)
Digital content (13)
Formal requirements (13)
RoW (13)
Exceptions from RoW (13)
RoW digital content (13)
Procedures for RoW (13)
Reimbursement (13)
Delivery & passing of risk (13)
Basic rate telephone (13)
Unjustified surcharges (13)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (13)
Inertia selling (13)
Other (5)

6

2

2

2

2

3

1

1

1
1

2

2
2

1

5

4
4

2

5

1

3

5

6

10

3

3

12

9

9

10

11

4

7

7

8

8

6

6

6

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Often

Rarely

Never

72 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

3.6.1.2  Traders’ awareness and understanding of CRD and its provisions 

Trade  associations  were  also  asked  about  the  level  of  awareness  of  obligations  by 
traders.  Over 70% indicated either a high or moderate level of awareness; interestingly, 
in their opinion, traders are more aware of the CRD than national legislation. 

Figure 3-19: Trade associations: What is the level of awareness among traders 
in your country? (Q 12) 

Q12 What is the level of awareness among traders selling online, by 
distance and/or off premises of the CRD and its implementation in 
your country? (N = 25)

Requirements for traders from EU CRD (25)

11

8

5

1

Requirements for traders from national consumer
protection legislation (24)

9

9

5

1

High levels of awareness Medium level of awareness

Low level of awareness No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

The  RoW  and  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises 
contracts  were  the  provisions  trade  associations  thought  traders  were  most  aware  of 
(see  Figure  3-20).  Provisions  they  thought  traders  were  least  aware  of  are  provisions 
concerning  digital  content.  This  could  reflect  the  fact  that  many  traders  responding  to 
the survey are not digital content providers, but equally it could also reflect the fact that 
digital content is a new area falling within the scope of the CRD which was not included 
in the previous legislation so traders are less aware of these new provisions.   

Traders were then asked to highlight the main changes in legislation to check their level 
of  awareness  (Figure  3-21).  Only  13%  of  traders  recognised  that  changes  had  been 
made in the legislation relating to extending consumers rights to include digital content, 
in comparison with 65% who acknowledged that changes had taken  place in respect  of 
pre-contractual information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts. Fewer 
traders  seemed  to  be  aware  of  the  inertia  selling  (8%)  and  basic  rate  on  telephone 
contacts related provisions (8%).   

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-20: Trade associations: What is the level of awareness among traders 
in  your  country  with  regard  to  the  specific  requirements  of  the  Directive?  (Q 
13) 

Q13 What is the level of awareness among traders in your country with regard 
to the specific requirements of the CRD? (N = 24)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (23)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (23)

Digital content (23)

Formal requirements (23)

RoW  (23)

Exceptions from RoW (23)

RoW digital content (23)

Reimbursement (23)

Delivery & passing of risk (23)

Basic rate telephone (24)

Surcharges for means of payment (22)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (22)

Inertia selling (22)

7

6

7

7

12

11

5

15

10

10

10

9

9

9

8

5

7

8

7

4

5

2

3

2

1

3

2

4

2

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

3

2

5

1

4

5

4

8

8

5

12

7

5

6

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

High

Medium

Low

Don't know

No opinion

Figure 3-21: Traders: What have been the main changes in national legislation? 
(Q 15) 

Q15 Do you recognise any changes in national legislation? (N = 110)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (44)
Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (72)
Language policy (12)
Digital content (14)
Formal requirements (49)
RoW  (63)
Exceptions from RoW (31)
Delivery & passing of risk (28)
Reimbursement (37)
Basic rate telephone (9)
Surcharges for means of payment (13)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (19)
Inertia selling (9)

11%

13%

40%

65%

45%

57%

28%

25%

34%

8%

12%

17%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

NB Figure 3-21: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

74 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Regarding the level of enquiries by traders, of the competent authorities that responded 
35%  have  not  noticed  an  increase  in  the  number  of  traders’  enquiries.  Slightly  more 
(38%)  on  the  other  hand  have  noticed  a  moderate  increase  (from  a  total  of  37 
responses).    When  asked  about  specific  provisions,  the  RoW  appears  to  be  the  most 
frequently  asked  about  provision,  particularly  the  exceptions  (refer  to  Figure  3-22). 
Reimbursement-related provisions were also highlighted as a provision frequently asked 
about. 

Figure  3-22:  National  competent  authorities  enquiries  about  consumer  rights 
covered by the CRD by traders (domestic) Q 11 

Q11 Which of the following consumer rights covered by the CRD have 
traders enquired about in the last 2 years (domestic)? (N = 25)

Pre-contract: on premises (23)

5

12

6

Pre-contract: distance & off premises (24)

Digital content (23)

1

Formal requirements (23)

6

13

13

RoW (24)

11

Exceptions from RoW (24)

RoW digital content (23)

2

15

12

Delivery & passing of risk (23)

Reimbursement (23)

Basic rate telephone (22)

Unjustified surcharges (22)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (23)

Inertia selling (23)

Penalties (23)

Other (10)

6

4

4

4

2

2

14

5

9

12

13

13

9

5

13

9

2

2

4

4

5

1

6

9

9

7

9

9

11

12

5

9

9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Often

Rarely

Never

Traders  rarely ask about pre-contractual information requirements for  distance and off-
premises  contracts(See  Figure  3-23)  and/or  on  any  other  CRD  related  aspects  (one 
national competent authority noted that traders did ask them about inertia selling often 
and another one noted that they asked about inertia selling rarely). This may be due to 
competent authorities not being the first point of call in terms of practical guidance about 
legislation on consumer rights by traders. Traders are much more likely to turn to their 
national trade association for advice and guidance.  During the interviews, many national 
consumer organisations and some ECCs noted that they get contacted directly by traders 
asking  for  advice  either  in  relation  to  how  to  comply  with  the  CRD  generally,  or  in 
relation to a specific dispute with a consumer. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-23:  National  competent  authorities  enquiries  about  consumer  rights 
covered by the CRD by traders (cross-border) Q 11 

Q11 Which of the following consumer rights covered by the CRD have 
traders enquired about in the last 2 years (cross-border)? (N = 15)

Pre-contract: on premises (15)

Pre-contract: distance & off premises (15)

Digital content (15)

2

Formal requirements (15)

RoW (15)

Exceptions from RoW (15)

RoW digital content (15)

2

Delivery & passing of risk (15)

1

Reimbursement (15)

Basic rate telephone (14)

Unjustified surcharges (15)

2

Ban pre-ticked boxes (15)

Inertia selling (15)

1

Penalties (14)

2

7

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

Other (7)

2

8

12

13

11

12

12

13

14

12

11

13

12

13

12

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Often

Rarely

Never

Responses  to  the  OPC  from  traders  and  their  associations  have  also  raised  concerns 
about  the  understanding  and  some  definitions  and  provisions  in  the  area  of  pre-
contractual information (CIVIC, 2016).  

“According  to  Article  6(1a),  the  trader  has  to  inform  the  consumer  about  the  ‘main 
characteristics  of  the  goods  or  services’.  This  term  is  not  sufficiently  defined  and  the 
information  cannot  be  provided  in  a  legally  certain  way  in  practice.  It  is  especially 
unclear how detailed the product has to be described without, however, becoming overly 
descriptive [to the point of] being incomprehensible.”  

“Some  information  obligations,  particularly  in  relation  to  selling  digital  content  via 
subscription services, give rise to confusion. For example, consumers must agree during 
the  purchase  flow  that  they  have  no  right  to  withdraw  from  a  sale  of  digital  content. 
However, for an ongoing or subscription contract, if the renewal is automatic, consumers 
must  be  informed  that  they  have  a  right  to  terminate  the  contract.  In  such 
circumstances, it is difficult for consumers to determine whether and when they have a 
right to cancel. Clarification in this area would be helpful.”  

“The  requirements  of  Article  6  were  not  necessarily  possible  to  implement  in  practice.  
For  instance,  the  consumer  must  receive  certain  pieces  of  information  before  entering 
into  a  contract.    Some  of  this  information  (e.g.  delivery  time)  may  not  be  available  at 
this stage.  In addition, where a consumer chooses advance payment as their preferred 

76 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

option, the trader will not send the product until they have received the money.  Thus, 
the  delivery  date  is  dependent  on  when  the  consumer  pays.    The  position  paper 
consequently suggested that it would be useful to clarify that it is sufficient for traders to 
provide a maximum or approximate delivery time at the pre-contractual stage”. 

In  summary,  it  can  be  said  that,  despite  efforts  by  the  EC  and  national  competent 
authorities,  there  appears  to  be  a  number  of  provisions  where  awareness  and 
understanding  is  still  low,  these  include  exemptions  from  the  RoW  and  inertia  selling. 
However, the Directive is considered to be a fairly new Directive (although based on two 
previous  ones),  thus  the  low  level  of  awareness  on  new  specific  provisions  is 
unsurprising.  

3.6.2  Compliance by traders with specific requirements of the CRD 

A  useful  indicator  of  compliance  is  to  see  whether  consumers  have  complained  to  the 
relevant  bodies  about  any  of  the  particular  requirements  in  the  CRD  and  on  which 
specific aspects they complained.  

Figure  3-24:  ECC  and  consumers’  complaints  with  regard  to  their  cross-border 
purchases  (Q2) 

Q2 Which aspects have consumers complained about in the last 2 years 
regarding their cross-border purchases ? (N = 29)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (28)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (28)

Language policy (28)

1

1

Digital content (28)

6

Formal requirements (28)

Geo-blocking (28)

9

8

17

11

16

19

12

10

10

8

9

8

20

10

Delivery & passing of risk (28)

16

RoW  (28)

22

RoW digital content (28)

7

Exceptions from RoW (28)

12

17

14

Reimbursement (28)

Basic rate telephone (29)

Surcharges for means of payment (28)

Ban pre-ticked boxes (29)

Inertia selling (28)

5

6

10

9

17

10

10

14

15

17

14

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

2

1

5

4

7

4

Other (14)

2

3

1

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Often

Rarely

Never

Don’t know

77 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

According  to  the  survey  data.  amongst  the  reasons  for  complaints  to  the  ECCs  by 
consumers  on  cross-border  purchases,  RoW  was  the  most  reported,  with  79%  of  the 
ECCs  stating  that  consumers  had  complained  often  about  the  RoW.    The  second  most 
mentioned  reason  for  complaints  was  reimbursement.    Note  however  that  these  only 
cover cross-border purchases.  

An analysis of the complaints data in the ECC-NET database was also undertaken (based 
on a cut-off date of end of 2015). It should be stressed that by definition, the data in the 
database only relates to cross-border complaints gathered by country-specific ECCs, so it 
captures useful data but not the totality of complaints, including those falling within the 
CRD’s scope relating to purely domestic complaints at MS level.  

One of the challenges was in separating complaints specifically relating to the CRD from 
those relating to other types of EU consumer legislation (e.g. the Sales and Guarantees 
Directive,  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive,  Misleading  and  Comparative 
Advertising  Directive  and  the  Price  Indication  Directive  etc.).  There  are  methodological 
and practical difficulties in separating out CRD-related complaints from those relating to 
other  Directives.  For  example,  in  respect  of  contract  terms,  complaints  relating  to  pre-
contractual  information  are  evidently  CRD-related,  but  other  types  of  complaints  may 
relate  to  other  aspects  of  contracts,  such  as  the  use  of  unfair  contractual  terms,  which 
would fall under the UPCD).   

Nevertheless, some types of complaints, such as those relating to the cooling off period, 
pre-contractual information obligations, and the transparency of the (total) payment can 
be  identified  as  being  directly  related  to  the  CRD.  Where  possible,  a  more  detailed 
analysis of complaints data by type at a disaggregated level has been undertaken so as 
to  attempt  to  isolate  cases  that  were  CRD-specific  and  to  ascertain  what  percentage  of 
total complaints within a particular category are CRD-related and which fall under other 
Directives.  In  addition,  data  from  the  ECC  survey  relating  to  complaints  has  been 
analysed to complement the assessment of complaints data from the database.  

Data  on  complaints  from  the  ECC-Net  database  shows  similarities  with  the  ECC 
responses  obtained  through  the  survey.    As  indicated  in  Figure  3-25,  the  ECC-Net 
database  suggests  that  the  greatest  numbers  of  complaints  concerning  the  CRD  are 
related  to  the  characteristics  of  products  and  service  (31%),  followed  by  complaints 
related to delivery (24%), contract terms (22%) and price or payments (10%).  

The data is shown below. 

Figure  3-25:  Percentage  of  complaints  concerning  the  CRD  broken  down  by 
type of complaints, 2015 

Source: ECC-Net database 

78 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

It  should  be  noted  that,  as  explained  earlier,  the  complaints  data  sometimes  lacks 
sufficient  granularity  to  ascertain  what  percentage  within  each  of  these  complaints 
categories  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  CRD,  within  the  scope  of  the  other  EU  consumer 
law  Directives  mentioned  above  or  relates  to  more  general  complaints  where  there  are 
no specific EU rules, and there may be national legislation only. Taking contract terms as 
an  example,  if  it  is  related  to  pre-contractual  information  that  will  be  part  of  the 
contract, then it is within the scope of the CRD, but if it relates to general T&C, then it is 
outside  the  scope  of  the  CRD,  although  it  may  fall  within  the  scope  of  other  EU  rules, 
such as the UPCD or the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts.   

A more detailed analysis of the complaints data by category of complaint from the ECC-
Net database is now provided, based on disaggregated data56. It should be stressed that 
sometimes, both provisions falling within the scope, as well as those falling outside the 
scope are included in the graph. The purpose is to show side by side which percentage of 
complaints  overall  relate  to  the  CRD,  to  the  extent  that  this  can  be  discerned,  since 
sometimes  a  particular  complaints  category  may  present  ambiguities  that  make  it 
difficult to disaggregate clearly. 

In  the  following  graph,  disaggregated  complaints  data  is  provided  relating  to  the 
responses  dealing  with  number  of  complaints  pertaining  to  the  characteristics  of  the 
products/services.  

Figure 3-26:  Product/Service - nature of complaint and selling method 

Product/Service

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Not
ordered

Not in
conformity
with order

Defective

Other

Refusal to
sell/to
provide

Caused
damage

Unsafe

Product/Service

As  shown  in  the  Figure  above,  among  complaints  falling  under  the  category  “the 
characteristics  of  products  or  services”,  the  highest  proportion  related  to  goods  or 
services  that  have  not  been  ordered  (38%),  and  the  second  highest  number  of 
complaints related to goods that are not in conformity with the order (21%).  It should 
be  noted  that  one  of  the  data  limitations  is  that  the  database  also  contains  complaints 
relating  to  other  EU  consumer  law  Directives.  For  instance,  the  20%  of  complaints 
relating  to  defective  products  relates  to  the  Sales  and  Guarantees  Directive.  It  is 
nevertheless useful to include the full range of complaints in the above Figure since this 
illustrates that CRD-related complaints account for a high proportion of total complaints 
in relation to product/ service characteristics.  

56 These findings are based on a pivot table generated from the raw ECC-Net database.  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-27:  Complaints data relating to delivery 

Delivery

87%

6%

Not ordered

Partially

4%

Delay

2%

Others

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

The disaggregated data in relation to delivery shows that most complaints were related 
to the fact that the good/service had not been received (87%). This was usually related 
to  goods  ordered  through  e-commerce  (92%).    This  was  usually  related  to  goods 
ordered  through  e-commerce  (92%).  It  can  be  noted  that  both  the  ECC-Net  database 
and  ECC  responses  to  the  survey  indicate  that  delivery  is  an  issue  about  which 
consumers  frequently  make  complaints.    For  instance,  through  the  ECC-Net  survey, 
several  examples  of  complaints  concerning  the  CRD  in  relation  to  cross-border  trade 
were  reported  related  to  complaints  for  the  delivery  of  the  goods/services  (24%  of  all 
complaints).    

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  issue  of  receiving  goods  or  services  that  were  not  ordered 
(Art.  27  -  inertia  selling)  is  consistent  with  the  ECC  comment  (reported  earlier)  that 
noted that there has been a progressive increase in the number of complaints associated 
with unsolicited goods/ services.  

Figure 3-28:  Complaints data relating to Contract terms 

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Contract terms

45%

31%

19%

Cooling off

Rescission of contract

Other

Unfair contract terms Copy of contract not

given

3%

1%

The analysis of the CRD complaints data from the ECC-Net database related to contract 
terms shows that the right of withdrawal and the 14 day cooling-off period is one of the 
provisions  that  has  led  to  a  high  number  of  complaints.    45%  of  cases  relating  to 
contract  terms  concerned  the  cooling-off  period  whilst  a  further  31%  related  to  the 
rescission  of  the  contract  more  broadly  (not  necessarily  falling  within  the  scope  for  the 
CRD  if  outside  the  14  days  RoW  period).  However,  since  there  was  a  minimum  7  day 
RoW under the predecessor legislation for both distance and off-premises contracts, it is 
unclear from the data alone how far the complaints received relate to the RoW moving to 
a  fully  harmonised  common  14  day  period  that  has  led  to  problems,  such  as  some 
traders  not  being  aware  of  the  change  in  legislation  from  the  pre-existing  situation, 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

which  in  some  countries  was  previously  only  7  days.  However,  other  factors  could 
equally  be  a  cause  for  complaint  from  consumers,  such  as  difficulties  in  finding  out 
information about how to exercise the RoW, or traders simply not being aware that they 
are required by law to allow consumers the RoW within the first 14 days.  

The  findings  were  triangulated  with  the  data  from  the  ECC  survey.  Although  there  is  a 
lack of sufficient detail as to the reasons complaints were made, the ‘right of withdrawal’ 
was  also  highlighted  as  the  most  commonly  complained  about  provision  in  the  on-line 
survey of ECCs in respect of complaints made by consumers to ECCs in respect of cross-
border purchases, with 79% of ECCs stating that consumers had frequently complained 
about  difficulties  in  exercising  the  RoW.  The  second  most  frequently  mentioned  reason 
for  complaints  was  difficulties  in  obtaining  reimbursement.  These  however  only  cover 
cross-border purchases.  

With regard to complaints in the database related to prices and payments, more than 
half  of  all  cases  (53%)  related  to  supplementary  charges  that  were  not  made  clear 
during  the  transaction  or  at  the  point  of  purchase  (Art.  22  -  Additional  payments  – 
makes  clear  the  obligation  to  pay).  This  includes  hidden  charges,  as  shown  in  the 
following graph: 

Figure 3-29:  Complaints data relating to Price and payments 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Price and payments

53%

18%

9%

9%

6%

6%

Supplementary
charges

Other

Payment
arrangements

Price increase

Price differencials

Incorrect price

The  complaints  data  shows  that  the  majority  of  complaints  related  to  supplementary 
charges paid by consumers. This was a more common problem for e-sellers in relation to 
distance  contracts  than  for  other  types  of  contracts  covered  by  the  CRD.  The  interview 
programme  suggested  that  there  may  be  various  problems  relating  to  supplementary 
charges  with  a  particular  problem  relating  to  online  subscription  cost  traps.  Other 
problems, such as the price not being made clear prior to completing the transaction and 
the incorrect price were also among those identified.  

In  terms  of  the  impact  of  some  of  the  new  provisions  within  the  CRD  on  complaints 
levels in the ECC-NET database, banning pre-ticket boxes on websites and on unjustified 
surcharges  for  the  use  of  credit  cards  and  the  requirement  for  traders  to  ensure 
provision  to  a  standard  rate  phone  line  have  generated  consumer  complaints,  some  of 
which  have  led  to  national  legal  cases  (see  Section  2.5  on  enforcement  and  Annex  II, 
which provides a longlist of legal cases). 

There  were  few  complaints  relating  to  difficulties  in  obtaining  redress,  potentially 
because work has been done by the ECCs to promote greater awareness about available 
ADR mechanisms, prompted by the adoption of the ADR Directive in 2013.  

81 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Consumers  were  asked  in  the  online  survey  about  different  aspects  of  compliance  by 
traders. As it can be seen in Figure 3-30, most of the responses highlighted issues with 
compliance  with  regard  to  the  RoW;  fewer  consumers  highlighted  issues  with  formal 
requirements  and  fees.    Compliance  with  the  different  CRD  requirements  is  analysed 
further below. 

Figure 3-30: Consumers view on shopping experience  (Q 5) 

Q5 During the last two years, when making a purchase of a good, a 
service or digital content online (N = 273)

Was the total amount to be paid clear by the time you
were asked for payment (including delivery )? (272)

87%

8%

2%

3%

Were you specifically asked to “agree to pay” when 
placing the order? (272)

72%

14%

9%

4%

Were you given access to a 'form for withdrawal'? (270)

17%

59%

21%

3%

Were you informed that you might have to pay to
return the goods in case of withdrawal? (270)

Were you informed that you would have to pay for any
diminished value of the goods caused by you prior to
their return? (271)

30%

50%

16%

4%

14%

67%

15%

5%

Were you informed that you would have to pay
reasonable costs for services already used? (270)

17%

54%

16%

13%

Did the trader ask your approval to start the service
during the withdrawal period? (271)

8%

44%

24%

24%

Were you informed that you can only withdraw from
the contract before you start downloading or streaming
digital content? (267)

10%

42%

19%

29%

Were you given clear information in plain and
intelligible language about the contract? (272)

45%

36%

12%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

Don’t know

Not applicable

Regarding  other  CRD  requirements,  67%  of  consumers  experienced  problems  receiving 
their  purchases  on  the  time  agreed;  whilst  48%  had  problems  unsubscribing  from  free 
online services (refer to Figure 3-31).  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-31: Consumers’ view on shopping experience (Q 8) 

Q8 During the last two years, when making a purchase of a good, a 
service or digital content online and/or using free online services (N = 
67)

Did you have to pay more than you 
expected due to ‘extras’  you did not 
intend to order? (67)

Did you have to pay any charges
because you paid by credit card? (67)

Have you had problems receiving the
goods, services or digital content at the
time agreed? (66)

Were you charged for goods, digital
content or services that you did not
request? (67)
Have you experienced any difficulties
when terminating the contract after
free-trial expired? (67)
Have you experienced any difficulties
when unsubscribing from free online
services? (67)
Have you been charged more than the
basic rate when contacting the trader
by telephone? (67)

37%

57%

4%

1%

45%

45%

4%

6%

67%

32%

2%

15%

76%

6%

3%

27%

40%

6%

27%

48%

30%

7%

15%

22%

36%

25%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes

No

Don’t know

Not applicable

Over  half  of  these  experiencing  any  such  problems  above  complained,  mostly  to  the 
seller or service provider. Approximately half received a full refund for their product and 
17% received a partial refund. For 22% the problem is still pending (see Figure 3-32).  

83 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-32: Consumers:  For those that complained (Q9 = Yes), what was the 
eventual outcome of this problem (Q 12) 

For those that complained about a problem (Q 9), what was the 
eventual outcome of this problem (Q 12)? (N = 36)

Received a partial refund for your product (6)

Received a full refund for your product (17)

Amended / cancelled your service contract with…

Amended / cancelled your service contract, but…

Received no amendment or replacement for…

Decided not to buy the product / service (4)

Do not know which product / service to buy (0)

6

7

3

3

4

17

Problem still pending (8)

8

4

0

2

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

3.6.2.1  Compliance with pre-contractual information requirements 

In  order  to  assess  compliance  with  the  different  information  requirements,  the  online 
survey asked consumers how much information they receive about the different aspects 
covered  in  Art.  5  and  6  (See  Figure  3-33).    Overall,  results  coincided  with  the  mystery 
shopping  study,  i.e.  consumers  received  a  fair  to  a  great  amount  of  information  about 
the characteristics of the product and acceptable means of payment.  Of the  consumers 
responding to the online survey, 38% stated that they did not receive much information 
about  the  trader.    This  was  also  found  in  the  mystery  shopping  where  information  on 
how  to  contact  the  trader  was  on  average  less  available  (GfK,  2016).    The  sweep  also 
found incomplete or unclear details about the trader in 34% of websites checked.   

Consumers did neither receive much information about accessing out of court complaint 
and redress mechanisms.  

84 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-33: Consumers:  how much information did you receive about the 
following ?  (Q 4) 

Q4 During the last two years, when making a purchase of a good, a service 
or of digital content online or on the phone and/or using free online-
services, how much information did you receive about the following? (N = 
278)

Characteristics of the product (277)

30%

57%

10%

3%
1%

Trader (275)

11%

43%

38%

RoW (272)

12%

31%

Acceptable means of payment (273)

37%

36%

50%

2%

4%

3%

14%

4%

3%

7%

1%
1%

3%

Delivery restrictions (271)

18%

42%

24%

5%

6%

5%

After-sales services and guarantees (273)

10%

33%

38%

11%

5%

3%

Conditions for terminating the contract (270)

7%

24%

Minimum duration of  contract (273)

6%

29%

39%

32%

18%

6%

6%

13%

8%

12%

Accessing out-of-court complaint & redress
mechanisms (266)

Free trials only, conditions when free-trial expires
(262)

3%

9%

23%

48%

11%

6%

4%

11%

27%

18%

14%

26%

Free online services only, service detail (265)

6%

18%

32%

15%

12%

17%

A great deal A fair amount Not very much Nothing at all Don’t know Not applicable

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3.6.2.2  Compliance with the RoW 

The  lack  of  information  on  the  trader  may  pose  difficulties  for  consumers  wishing  to 
withdraw  from  a  contract.    This  consultation  asked  consumers  whether  they  had 
experienced  any  difficulties  when  exercising  their  RoW.    The  following  chart  should  be 
interpreted with caution owing to the low level of responses but it would indicate that a 
considerable  percentage  of  consumers  experienced  problems  over  the  RoW.    When 
asked about the type of problem, the largest percentage noted that they had difficulties 
contacting  the  trader  to  notify  them  about  withdrawal  (Figure  3-35).    Indeed,  this  was 
one  of  the  problems  highlighted  by  the  consumer  associations  in  the  interviews 
particularly with regard to traders using social media platforms to sell products.  

85 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-34:  Consumers:    If  you  have  exercised  your  RoW,  have  you 
experienced any problems (Q 14)? 

Q14 If you have exercised your RoW, have you experienced any 
problems? N = (38)

3% 5%

16%

29%

21%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, every time

Yes, often

Yes, a few times

Yes, once

No, never

Not applicable

Figure 3-35: Consumers:  What type of problems? (Q17) 

Q17 What type of problem? (N = 32)

Trader didn’t recognise your right to RoW (11)

Trader did not inform me about the RoW,
procedures and/or did not provide the withdrawal
form (9)

Had problems contacting the trader to notify
them about withdrawal (16)

Had problems contacting the trader as regards
the return of products (12)

11

9

16

12

The trader did not provide a full refund (10)

10

Trader did not provide the refund within 14 days
once informed (6)

6

Other (4)

4

0% 200%400%600%800%1000%1200%1400%1600%1800%

NB Figure 3-35: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N). 

According  to  Art.13  of  the  CRD,  the  trader  shall  reimburse  all  payments  received  from 
the  consumers  in  the  event  of  withdrawal  including,  if  applicable,  the  costs  of  delivery 
without undue delay and in not vent not later than 14 from the day he is informed to the 
consumer’s decision to withdraw. However, the mystery shopping study under the Refit 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

programme  found  that  50%  of  traders  charged  consumers  for  returning  the  product  (a 
mouse  and  USB)  at  least  initially.  Hence,  consumers  had  to  cover  the  return  costs 
themselves  at  first,  even  if  they  are  paid  back  in  some  cases.  The  results  were  more 
positive  for  digital  content  however.  For  security  software  (96%  for  one-off  purchases 
and  98%  of  subscriptions),  the  likelihood  of  obtaining  a  full  refund  was  very  high.  This 
percentage was noticeably lower for music downloads (77%). 

The  mystery  shopping  study  also  revealed  that  withdrawal  forms  were  quite  difficult  to 
find and in 25% of all online shops tested for tangible goods, such information was not 
available  (GfK,  2016).    This  was  also  reflected  in  the  responses  given  by  consumers  to 
the  online  survey,  where  59%  of  consumers  stated  they  were  not  given  access  to  a 
withdrawal form (Figure 3-26).  

This  also  applied  to  digital  content.  According  to  the  mystery  shopping,  half  of  all 
software  traders  (52%)  did  not  provide  withdrawal  forms.    Moreover,  consumers  were 
not  informed  by  software  providers  that  their  RoW  may  be  lost  at  the  point  of  the 
downloading or streaming the content.  Our interviews with traders have highlighted this 
as an issue for digital content sales too (Figure 3-26 shows that 42% of consumers were 
not  notified  that  they  would  lose  their  RoW  if  they  started  downloading  or  streaming 
digital content).   

The  latest  EU  "sweep"  also  found  similar  results  across  all  type  of  contracts.  
Irregularities were confirmed in 436 (63% of a total 743) cases, with websites missing or 
providing unclear  or  incomprehensible information  on  the  RoW  from  a  transaction.    For 
example,  websites  did  not  contain  a  relevant  withdrawal  form  while  it  was  their  legal 
obligation  to  do  so,  or  did  not  inform  the  consumer  about  the  exact  number  of  days 
available to him/her to withdraw from an online transaction (14 days).   

The  OPC  provided  some  opinions  from  the  traders’  perspective  on  the  RoW  and 
compliance,  with  one  stakeholder  (an  association)  noting  that  their  members  had 
experienced a significant abuse rate of the RoW for digital content where it was intended 
for immediate consumption.  Another highlighted that the exceptions to the RoW may be 
difficult  to  apply  in  reality,  in  particular  those  relating  to  digital  content.    According  to 
one  trader,  prompting  the  consumer  to  lose  their  RoW  can  “worsen  the  shopping 
experience”.  Although this cannot be seen as a reason for non-compliance, it may help 
to explain why traders are reluctant to inform consumers about this exception with some 
of them accepting returns even when they are aware that downloading or streaming has 
taken place (refer to section on efficiency for discussion on the costs from this). 

3.6.2.3  Compliance with regard to payments and fees 

The  mystery  shopping  study  also  showed  that  only  10%  of  traders  ask  for  extra  fees 
based  on  the  selected  payment  method.    Our  online  survey  asked  consumers  whether 
they  had  been  charged  for  using  credit  cards;  nearly  half  of  those  responding  to  this 
question  did  not  have  to  pay  but  approximately  a  third  of  those  who  were  charged 
needed  to  pay  over  €10  per  transaction  and  a  further  third  of  these  consumers  paid 
between  €5  and  €10.    Owing  to  the  low  level  of  responses  at  country  level  for  this 
specific question, a country by country analysis could not be undertaken, but anecdotal 
evidence  shows that the consumers  from Cyprus and Romania appear to be paying the 
largest  amount  for  the  use  of  credit  cards.    The  consumer  association  from  Cyprus 
confirmed this during the interview.  

87 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 3-36: Consumers:  If you paid charges for using credit card, what is the 
amount? (Q 10) 

Q10 In the last two years, if you said you had to pay charges because 
you paid by credit card, could you please enter the amount? (N = 64)

17%

20%

16%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

<€5

€5-€10

>€10

Not applicable

3.6.2.4  Compliance with other requirements 

According to Article 8(3) of the Directive, the trader selling through websites shall inform 
the  consumer  at  the  latest  at  the  beginning  of  the  ordering  process  about  delivery 
restrictions and which means of payment that are accepted.  

The findings of a mystery shopping conducted in 2016 on geo-blocking 57 concluded that 
the  majority  of  websites  do  not  let  consumers  buy  from  another  EU  country  (geo-
blocking  practices  were  identified  in  63%  of  all  websites  assessed).  Moreover,  it  found 
that  consumers  were  geo-blocked  at  different  stages  of  online  shopping,  including  the 
delivery  (in  32%  of  the  cases  after  registering  with  the  trader)  and  payments  stages 
(26%  blocked  transactions  at  payment  stage)  (Gfk,  2016).  Although  consumers 
responding  to  the  online  survey  appear  to  have  received  a  fair  amount  of  information 
about delivery restrictions (see Figure 3-27) , this have not precluded 29% of the ECCs 
stating that consumers have complained often about the practices on geo-blocking.  

In  May  2016,  the  Commission  made  a  legislative  proposal  on  geo-blocking.    The 
proposed  regulation  addresses  the  problem  of  customers  not  being  able  to  buy  goods 
and  services  from  traders  located  in  a  different  MS,  or  being  discriminated  in  prices  or 
sales  conditions  compared  to  nationals.    In  the  consultation  responses,  some 
associations  did  not  view  there  as  being  a  need  for  new  legislation  but  highlighted  the 
importance of enforcing the CRD’s rules (i.e. Art. 8). 

3.6.2.5  Compliance by sector 

By  sector,  the  level  of  compliance  also  varies.  Our  interviews  have  revealed  lack  of 
compliance  in  respect  of  online  subscriptions  and  monthly  contracts  for  mobile  phones 
whereas a review of the literature has found issues of compliance with the energy sector. 

57   GfK  (2016b):    Mystery  shopping  survey  on  territorial  restrictions  and  geo-blocking  in  the 
European  Digital  Single  Market.  The  study  for  the  EC  checked  10537  e-commerce  websites  to  have  a 
full picture of the geo-blocking practices in the EU. The mystery shopping looked into 143 country pairs and 
8  sectors  of  goods  and  digital  content  that  are  most  commonly  purchased  online  in  the  EU,  such  as 
electronic and computer hardware.  

88 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The EESC in its evaluation of the CRD also identified compliance issues among traders to 
prevail in a few particularly problematic sectors such as distance sellers  (telephone and 
catalogue), energy (gas/electricity) and telecommunications sectors (EESC, 2017). Other 
cases being noticed by the study team refer to the formal requirements for contracts by 
telecommunication companies offered by phone (in line with Article 8.6). 

Example of complaints for paid-for online subscriptions, Sweden. 

Consumers  have  fallen  victim  to  “cost  traps”  on  the  Internet.  This  happens  when 
fraudsters  try  to  trick  people  into  paying  for  ‘free’  services,  such  as  advertising  a  very 
cheap  mobile  phone  but  not  making  it  clear  that  the  consumer  is  signing  up  for  an 
expensive monthly mobile phone contract.   

Through  social  media,  there  have  been  adverts  for  mobile  phones  nominally  costing  1 
EUR.  However,  the  consumer  subsequently  discovers  that  the  deal  marketed  as  a 
special offer is actually a costly subscription of circa 70 EUR a month. 

The contract is difficult to cancel and the legally-required pre-information requirements 
are  missing.  In  such  cases,  if  the  consumer  ticks  the  button  for  the  special  offer,  the 
trader  then  fraudulently  claims  that  the  consumer  has  accepted  the  T&C  and  has 
accepted  the  terms  of  the  contract  and  the  monthly  subscription.  However,  on 
investigation  by  Swedish  enforcement  agencies,  they  have  discovered  that  information 
requirements were missing with no written information regarding an obligation to pay.  

However,  sometimes  through  the  use  of  pop-ups,  it  is  not  clear  that  there’s  an 
obligation  to  pay.    This  amounts  to  a  clear  breach  of  the  provisions  of  the  CRD  under 
Article 8 (2) formal requirements for distance contracts (obligation to pay).  

Cross-border  complaints  have  been  raised  for  paid-  subscription  services  to  dating 
websites and advertised through social media. The most common countries where there 
have  been  cross-border  complaints  made  by  Swedish  consumers  are  the  CY,  DK,  MT, 
the UK and the Baltic States. It is also difficult to ascertain whether these locations are 
really where the trader is established, since often no contact email address or address is 
provided.  

Source: interview with Swedish Consumer Agency and Swedish ECC. 

According  to  the  sweep,  the  pattern  of  irregularities  occurs  across  different  sectors, 
multi-purpose or specialist retailers and type of contract (good, service, digital content). 
The  latest  consumer  scoreboard  however  has  concluded  that  the  largest  differences  in 
the assessment of market performance between EU countries are found for the markets 
for electricity services, water supply, railway transport, mortgages and mobile telephone 
services.  Compared  to  better  assessed  markets,  these  markets  are  characterised  by 
limited cross-border competition. Thus there is still considerable scope for improvement 
through  national  structural  reforms  and  a  more  effective  enforcement  of  the  consumer 
protection rules (CEC, 201658). The review of the ECC-Network and complaints has also 
shown that almost one  in every two complaints relates to the sectors of  recreation and 
culture (24%) or transport (20%); the rest however are spread amongst a wide range of 
sectors;  with  17%  of  all  cases  labelled  under  the  category  miscellaneous  goods  and 

58  CEC  (2016):  2016  EDITION  Consumer  Markets  Scoreboard  Making  markets  work  for  consumers,  available 

at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/consumer_scoreboards/12_edition/docs/consumer_ma
rkets_scoreboard_2016_en.pdf    

89 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

services.    The  following  figure  provides  an  overview  of  the  number  of  complaints 
occurred in 2015 broken down by individual consumption by purpose (COICOP)59.   

Figure  3-37:  Percentage  of  complaints  related  to  the  CRD  broken  down  by 
COICOP, 2015  

20%

17%

30%

25%

24%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

9%

8%

8%

5%

4%

4%

Recreation and
culture

Transport

Miscellaneous
goods and
services

Furnishing,
household
equipment and
routine
household
maintenance

Health

Clothing and
footwear

Communication Restaurants,
hotels and
accommodation
services

Others*

NB:  Outside  COICOP  classification,  food  and  non-alcoholic  beverages,  Alcoholic 
beverages and tobacco, Housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels, Education 

Source: ECC-Net database 

3.6.3  Enforcement by competent authorities 

Section  2  described  the  different  enforcement  regimes  of  some  MS  in  aspects  of  CRD 
implementation.  In  summary,  it  can  be  said  that,  despite  the  full  harmonisation,  the 
level  of  enforcement  varies  across  MS  both  in  respect  of  number  and  type  of 
enforcement actions, the number of cases brought to court and the level of penalties.   

With regard to the type of actions being conducted by the  enforcement authorities, the 
survey asked competent authorities about the actions being pursued in their country. In 
addition  to  the  information  and  awareness  raising  campaigns,  reviewed  above,  joint 
actions  by  the  CPC  Network,  consumer  sweeps  and  pre-enforcement  actions  are  being 
carried  out  by  the  competent  authorities.    Figure  3-34  shows  that  87%  of  the  national 
authorities  responding  to  the  survey  have  conducted  pre-enforcement  actions.    The 
same  %  has  participated  in  consumer  sweeps  of  websites.  These  can  lead  to 
enforcement actions for those traders that remain non- compliant.  Indeed, as a result of 
the sweep, 353 out of 436 websites have been corrected, but national administrative or 
legal  proceedings  continue  for  the  83  websites  which  are  still  not  compliant.    It  is 
important to ensure that national competent authorities have the resources available to 

59  Classification of  individual  consumption by  purpose,  abbreviated  as  COICOP,  is  a  nomenclature  developed 
by  the  United  Nations  Statistics  Division  to  classify  and  analyse  individual  consumption  expenditures  and 
actual individual consumption. 

90 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

conduct enforcement activities and focus on those provisions where compliance appears 
to be more of an issue, such as the provision of the withdrawal form.  

Figure 3-38: National competent authorities’ non-regulatory actions (Q 18) 

Q18 Which types of non-regulatory actions are being pursued by 
national enforcement authorities in your country? (N = 31)

Joint actions between national enforcement
authorities by the CPC Network (27)

Awareness-raising and information campaign(s)
(28)

Guidance to traders (25)

Consumer sweep of websites (27)

27

28

25

27

Mystery shopping (16)

16

Pre-enforcement actions (27)

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NB Figure 3-38: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

However,  the  view  of  the  stakeholders  on  the  enforcement  ability  of  the  national 
authorities  is  mixed.  During  this  study,  consumer  associations  were  asked  to  rate  the 
ability  of  national  authorities  to  enforce  CRD  provisions.  The  opinions  were  quite  split 
(see Figure 3-39), with over 40% of the respondents stating that the ability of national 
authorities was not that effective or not effective and a similar number stating that they 
were  quite  effective  (with  a  few  noting  that  they  were  very  effective  for  goods  and 
services).  These  results  are  shared  by  the  EESC’s  report  which  notes  that,  although  a 
majority of organisations agreed that the Directive was effectively implemented, the role 
of  national  authorities  in  enforcing  the  provisions  is  less  of  an  explanation  to  effective 
implementation (EESC, 2017). 

91 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  3-39:  Consumer  associations:  Ability  of  national  authorities  to  enforce 
the provisions of the Consumer Rights Directive (Q 8) 

Q8 How would you rate the ability of national authorities in your 
country to enforce the provisions of the CRD for the sale or provision 
of? (N = 22)

Goods (22)

2

Services (22)

1

9

10

9

7

2

2

2

Digital content (22)

9

8

2

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Very effective

Quite effective

Not that effective

Not effective at all

Don’t know

The  OPC  asked  about  the  effectiveness  of  various  consumer  redress/enforcement 
mechanisms in protecting consumer rights, although these included all EU consumer and 
marketing  rules  and  not  just  the  CRD.  Most  public  authorities  (61%)  and  business 
respondents  (57%)  agreed  that  administrative  authorities  issuing  injunctions  that  stop 
infringements of consumer rights represents a very effective or rather effective means of 
protecting consumer rights in the event of a breach of EU consumer and marketing rules. 
In contrast, 42% of consumers and only 20% of consumer associations agree that such 
a mechanism is effective. Several opinions were also  expressed by those  responding to 
the  OPC in their open text and position papers. A few respondents to  the  OPC felt that 
there were differences in the way in which the rules were enforced in different MS.  They 
thought  that  this  could  lead  to  inequalities  and  potentially  mean  that  traders  might  be 
unwilling to sell their goods and services cross-border.   

Responses to the OPC on enforcement 

There should be a shift in the tools available for public enforcement to ensure that non-
compliance was dealt with in a proportionate and cost-efficient manner. 

Ineffective  enforcement  was  a  problem,  with  some  MS  imposing  severe  sanctions  on 
major  retailers  for  apparently  minor  violations,  whilst  rogue  traders  continued  to 
operate.  

..not clear which body is responsible for enforcement.  

The lack of uniformity in enforcement across MS is an issue. 

National  authorities  that  are  responsible  for  enforcing  consumer  rights  are  not 
sufficiently active.  Consumer associations have too few resources to be able to operate.  
This means that serious violations of consumer law cannot be dealt with. 

The level of cooperation between enforcement authorities is often insufficient and allows 
scammers to  switch  from one MS to another and carry on.   The situation is  even more 
complex with third country fraudsters. 

92 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

3.6.4  Analysis of CRD legal cases to date 

Since the CRD only came into force in June 2014, there have not been many legal cases 
to date compared with other longer-established consumer legislation. Moreover, since it 
takes  some  time  for  cases  to  be  referred  up  to  higher  courts  and  for  decisions  to  be 
reached, there are only a relatively small number of cases where court judgements have 
been  upheld.  Nevertheless,  through  the  research  carried  out  by  our  study  team  and 
complemented  by  input  from  the  Consumer  Law  Database60,  94  cases  have  been 
identified in total, including a combination of  12 cases identified  during the evaluation 
by  the  study  team  and  an  additional  82  cases  from  the  Consumer  Law  Database.  The 
cases identified are non-exhaustive because it is difficult to quantify the total number of 
cases  since  many  cases  go  unreported  (especially  at  lower  levels  of  court  and 
administrative courts) and are not always included in national legal statistical databases. 
The cut-off date for the analysis is September 2016. 

A  review  of  the  Consumer  Law  Database  and  additional  cases  mentioned  above  has 
revealed information on the number of court cases by MS, shown in Figure 3-40.  Since 
the  CRD  only  came  into  force  in  June  2014  however,  there  has  not  been  many  legal 
cases61.  The  review  has  revealed  that  a  small  number  of  countries  account  for  a 
significant  percentage  of  the  legal  cases.  As  can  be  seen  in  Figure  3-40,  there  have 
already been 14 different cases in IT, and eight each in DE, LV and the NL respectively. 
Some  of  the  cases  are  outstanding  since  following  an  initial  judgment,  they  may  have 
been referred to a higher court. In a number of EU MS, there have been very few cases 
to date such as EL (2), AT(2), and MT, BE and HR (1 each). It can also be noted that in 
other  MS,  such  as  FR  and  the  UK,  there  have  not  yet  been  any  cases  at  all.  This  was 
confirmed  through  the  interviews.  A  selected  number  of  the  more  significant  national 
cases are presented in Annex 3.  

Figure 3-40: Number of national legal cases 

The review of the Consumer Law Database and the additional cases shows which articles 
of  the  CRD  these  court  cases  relate  to.    These  are  shown  in  the  following  Figure. 

60 Consumer Law Database, European e-Justice Portal. 
61   Moreover,  since  it  takes  some  time  for  cases  to  be  referred  up  to  higher  courts  and  for  decisions  to  be 
reached, there are only a relatively small number of cases where court judgements have been upheld.  

93 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Information  requirements  relating  to  distance  and  off-premises  contracts  (Art.  6(1)) 
account for a significant percentage of the total cases62.    

Figure 3-41: Articles related to national legal cases 

The  analysis  of  court  cases  by  Article  shows  some  interesting  trends.  Information 
requirements  relating  to  distance  and  off-premises  contracts  (Art.  6(1))  account  for  a 
significant percentage of the total, but there have also been quite a few cases in respect 
of other Articles, such as Art. 8 (formal requirements for distance contracts) (16%), and 
clarifications  sought  in  respect  of  Art.  2  (definitions)  (11%).  In  relation  to  definitions, 
some cases have arisen pertaining to issues such as the definition of business premises. 
There  have  also  been  a  few  cases  relating  to  Art.  19  (fees  for  the  use  of  means  of 
payment), and Art. 22 (additional payments) which bans default options on websites. To 
date, there have only been a handful of cases in respect of Art. 27 (Inertia selling) and 
these  mainly  relate  to  energy  companies  in  Italy.  Art.  9  (the  right  of  withdrawal)  and 
Art. 20 (Passing of risk) accounted for 5% and 6% of cases respectively.  

A small number of cases have been dealt with by administrative courts. Such cases are 
not  a  separate  category,  since  these  depend  on  the  type  of  enforcement  system  –  and 
the  role  of  different  courts  within  the  system  which is  the  responsibility  of  the  Member 
States to determine. 

Administrative  courts  played  a  role  for  instance  in  Lithuania,  Estonia  and  Latvia, 
especially  cases  relating  to  Art.  21  (communication  by  telephone)  and  access  to  a 
standard rate charge phone line upon concluding a contract. The cases that have arisen 
under  this  Article  appear  to  be  mainly  concentrated  in  the  telecommunications  and 
passenger transport sectors. For instance, in Italy, decisions issued by the enforcement 
authority can only be appealed before an administrative judge.  

At EU level, there has only been one request to date for a preliminary ruling referred to 
the CJEU. The case was referred by the Court of Justice in Germany and an Opinion was 
issued by the CJEU in November 2016.   

62   In summary, 94 cases have been identified in total, of which only a small number are likely to be significant 
from  a  case  law  perspective.  The  total  number  of  cases  may  exceed  this  figure,  but  this  is  difficult  to 
capture due to gaps in data availability.  

94 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Zentrale  zur  Bekämpfung  unlauteren  Wettbewerbs  Frankfurt  am  Main.  Request 
for  a  preliminary  ruling.  (OJ  2011  L 304,  p. 64).  (10  November:  Court  of  Justice  – 
Seventh  Chamber).  A  referral  for  an  opinion  by  the  CJEU  was  issued.  In  summary,  the 
Court  was  called  upon  to  provide  clarification  in  connection  with  the  transposition  of 
consumer protection law, in particular as regards telephone communications and,  more 
specifically,  the  provision  by  a  trader  of  an  after-sales-service  telephone  line  for  its 
customers.  The  questions  referred  concern  the  interpretation  of  the  concept  of  ‘basic 
rate’  within  the  meaning  of  Article  21  of  Directive  2011/83/EU  since  the  Directive  does 
not contain any definition of the concept of what a basic rate means. Three questions in 
particular were referred:  

1.  Is the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83 to be interpreted as meaning 
that,  where  a  trader  operates  a  telephone  line  for  the  purpose  of  consumers 
contacting the trader by telephone in relation to contracts concluded with the trader, 
a  consumer  contacting  the  trader  by  telephone  must  not  incur  higher  charges  than 
those  that  the  consumer  would  incur  for  calling  a  standard  (geographic)  fixed  or 
mobile number? 

2.  Does  the  first  paragraph  of  Article  21  of  the  CRD  preclude  national  legislation 
according to which, where a trader operates a shared-cost service on an 0180 number 
for  the  purpose  of  consumers  contacting  the  trader  by  telephone  in  relation  to 
contracts  concluded  with  the  trader,  a  consumer  must  pay  [the  costs]  which  the 
telecommunications  service  provider  charges  the  consumer  for  the  use  of  that 
telecommunications  service,  even  where  those  charges  exceed  those  which  the 
consumer would incur for calling a standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number? 

3.  Does the first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83 not preclude such national 
legislation  where  the  telecommunications  service  provider  does  not  pass  on  to  the 
trader  part  of  the  charges  that  he  receives  from  the  consumer  for  contacting  the 
trader on the 0180 number?’ 

The  specific  facts  of  this  case  related  to  a  German  telecommunications  company  that 
markets  electrical  and  electronic  equipment.  On  its  website,  it  displays  the  telephone 
number  of  a  support  service  for  customers  who  have  already  concluded  a  contract  to 
purchase equipment and wish to obtain clarifications or explanations in relation to their 
contract.  The  telephone  number  provided  contains  the  prefix  0180,  which  is  used  in 
Germany for support services at a single national rate. The cost of a call to the dedicated 
(non-geographic) number exceeds the amount that the consumer would incur at normal 
connection rates for calling a standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number.  

The  referring  court  had  doubts  concerning  the  interpretation  and  raised  the  issue  as  to 
whether or not this was legal within the meaning of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83. The 
court  wondered  whether  a  more  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  concept  of  ‘basic  rate’ 
than that in German legislation should be adopted to ensure a higher level of consumer 
protection.  It  considered  that  the  purpose  of  the  wording  of  Article  21  of  the  CRD 
suggests a more restrictive interpretation. Although the provision in German national law 
prohibits profits from being made through the use of a non-geographic telephone line, it 
does not prevent calls made to that line from  being charged at a higher  rate than calls 
made to standard lines.  

An  Opinion  of  the  Advocate  General  was  issued  on  10  November,  Opinion  C-568/1563. 
The  overall  finding  was  that:  “The  concept  of  ‘basic  rate’  contained  in  Article  21  of 
Directive 2011/83/EU [….] must be interpreted as meaning that where a trader operates 
a  telephone  line  for  the  purpose  of  consumers  contacting  the  trader  by  telephone  in 

63 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-568/15 Opinion ECLI:EU:C:2016:863 

95 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

relation to contracts concluded with the trader, a consumer calling the after-sales service 
of  the  trader  must  not  incur  charges  higher  than  the  normal  costs  which  the  consumer 
would incur for calling a standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number”. 

The Judgement issued on 2 March 2017 confirmed the Advocate General's Opinion. 

Having analysed the cited case law (the list of cases pertaining to the CRD is provided in 
Annex 3), it was concluded that most legal cases do not contribute towards establishing 
legal precedent through case law, since they simply confirm or establish how to correctly 
apply the law rather than provide an interpretation in respect of Articles/sub-Articles that 
may have contained some degree of ambiguity in interpretation. However, a number of 
cases which raise interpretation issues have been identified, including one that has been 
referred to the ECJ. 

Table  3-1:    Examples  of  relevant  national  court  decisions  in  selected  EU 
countries 

MS 

Level of 
Court 

National court 
judgements 

Significance of case 

DE 

Bundesge
richtshof 
(Federal 
Supreme 
Court) 

BGH, 25. February 
2016 - I ZR 238/14 
http://juris.bundesgeri
chtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/do
cument.py?Gericht=bg
h&Art=en&sid=23c33c
231a3ee75f04bc37a75
a0162ea&nr=75175&p
os=0&anz=7 

DE 

Bundesge
richtshof 
(Federal 
Supreme 
Court) 

BGH, 10 December 
2014 - VIII ZR 90/14 
See press release 
here: http://juris.bund
esgerichtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/do
cument.py?Gericht=bg
h&Art=en&sid=23c33c
231a3ee75f04bc37a75
a0162ea&nr=69653&li
nked=pm&Blank=1 
Judgment:  http://juri
s.bundesgerichtshof.d
e/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/do
cument.py?Gericht=bg
h&Art=en&sid=23c33c
231a3ee75f04bc37a75

(1) 

the 

Important  decision  on 
relationship 
between  the  information  duties  in  Art.  6  (1) 
(c) and (f) and Art. 21 of the CRD to those in 
(c)  E-Commerce  Directive 
Art.  5 
2000/31/EC.  As  a  general  rule, 
these 
information  obligations  apply in  parallel.  The 
provider  of an online service who  only offers 
an  e-mail  address  and  a  chargeable  phone 
number  on  his  website  as  a  possibility  for  a 
contact  does  not  enable  the  consumer  to 
contact  them  quickly  and  to  communicate 
efficiently in the sense of Art. 6 (1) (c) CRD. 
The Court did not refer the case to the CJEU, 
because  it  thinks  that  this  is  an  acte  clair 
(because  of  a  similar  case  where  a  CJEU 
opinion  was 
to 
predecessor  legislation  -  16  Oct  2008  -  C-
298/07-  Verbraucherzentrale  Bundesverband 
/DIV) 
Judgment  on  ending  an  eBay  auction  early. 
Important  case  where  the  German  Supreme 
Court  holds  (in  an  obiter  dictum)  that  the 
CRD  is  only  applicable  where  the  trader 
delivers  goods  or  provides  services  and  the 
consumer  pays  money  as  a  counter-
performance,  but  not  in  in  the  reverse 
situation  where,  e.g.  the  consumer  sells  a 
good to the trader (cf. Nr. 22, 23).  

issued, 

relates 

that 

This  case  may  have  to  be  referred  to  the 
CJEU, if it were part of the ratio decidendi. In 
German legal literature, it is considered to be 
controversial  whether  at  least  some  articles 
of the CRD also apply to contracts where the 
consumer delivers goods or services (cf. Art. 
3 CRD “.to any contract concluded between a 
trader  and  a  consumer”).  The  more 

96 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Level of 
Court 

National court 
judgements 

Significance of case 

a0162ea&nr=70014&p
os=6&anz=7 

restrictive definitions in Art.  2 Nr. 5 and Nr. 
6 CRD do not limit the scope of the CRD as a 
whole  (since  they  only  apply  to  individual 
articles  of  the  CRD;  cf.,  e.g.  Art.  14  (4)  or 
Art. 17 CRD). For the applicability of the CRD 
also  in  cases  where  the  consumer  delivers 
goods or supplies services cf. Busch, in Beck-
online-GROSSKOMMENTAR,  §  312  Nr.  13; 
Wendehorst, in Münchener Kommentar § 312 
in 
BGB 
Handkommentar  BGB,  §  312  Rn.  4;  Maume, 
Neue  Jusistische  Wochenschrift  2016,  p. 
1041.  

Schulte-Nölke, 

21; 

Nr. 

DE 

Amtsgeric
ht 
(District 
Court) 

AG Dieburg, 4 
November2015 - 20 C 
218/15 (21) 

This  decision 
clarifications: 

contains 

two 

important 

the  exercising  of 

1.  In  a  case  where  the  consumer  refuses  to 
take  delivery  of  the  ordered  goods,  the 
refusal  is,  according  to  the  court,  not  to  be 
considered  as 
the 
consumer’s  right  of  withdrawal.    Insofar  as 
this  decision  applies  to  Art.  11  (1)(b)  CRD 
(as  transposed  into  German  law  in  § 355 
para  1  sentences  2  and  3  BGB).  This 
provision requires that the consumers makes 
“an  unequivocal  statement  setting  out  his 
decision to withdraw from the contract”. The 
courts  held  that  the  simple  refusal  to  accept 
delivery  of  the  goods  when  the  postman 
arrives is not such an unequivocal statement. 
Compared  with  the  pre-CRD  situation  in 
German  law,  however,  the  consumer  is 
worse  off 
in  such  a  case.  Before  the 
transposition  of  the  CRD,  §  355  para  1 
sentence 2 BGB (in force until 12 June 2014) 
provided that the simple return or reshipping 
of the goods (without any further statement) 
qualifies  as  the  exercise  of  the  right  of 
withdrawal.  On  other  words,  before  the 
transposition of the CRD the consumer would 
have  won  the  case;  now  he  loses  just 
because of the CRD. 
2.  The  other  important  point  relates  to  the 
commencement of the 14 day time period for 
the  right  of  withdrawal.  The  court  held  that 
the 
this  period  already  began  when 
consumer  refused  to  take  delivery  of  the 
goods. This ruling may be in conflict with Art. 
9(2)(b)  CRD  which 
the 
consumer 
physical 
possession  of  the  goods  (which  was  not  the 
case  since  the  consumer  never  had  the 
actual  physical  possession  of  the  goods  in 

requires 

actually 

that 

had 

the 

97 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Level of 
Court 

National court 
judgements 

Significance of case 

DE 

Bundesge
richtshofs 
(Federal 
Court) 

BGH, 17 June 2015 - 
VIII ZR 249/14  

http://juris.bundesgeri
chtshof.de/cgi-
bin/rechtsprechung/do
cument.py?Gericht=bg
h&Art=en&nr=71692&
pos=0&anz=1 

DE 

Landesger
icht 
(regional 
Court) 

LG Münster, 4 
November 2015 - 02 O 
127/15 

question  since  he  told  the  postman  that  he 
would  refuse  to  accept  delivery  and  the 
postman therefore did not unload the goods. 

Pre  CRD  case:  This  ruling  concerns  the 
predecessor  of  Art  16  b  CRD  (Art  6  (3) 
Distance  Selling  Directive  97/7/EC)  which 
has nevertheless the same formulation.   
The  court  held  that  heating  oil  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  “goods  for  which  the  price  is 
dependent  on  fluctuations  in  the  financial 
market  which  cannot  be  controlled  by  the 
trader  and  which  may  occur  within  the 
withdrawal  period”  in  the  sense  of  Art  16(b) 
CRD.  The  court  interpreted  this  provision 
narrowly  and  required  the  distance  sales 
contract to be “speculative at the core”. As a 
result, the consumer who ordered heating oil 
had a  right of  withdrawal. This judgement is 
widely  contested  as  too  favourable  to  the 
consumer 
(cf.Henning-Bodewig,  Distance 
Sales  of  Heating  Oil  and  the  Consumer’s 
Right  of  Withdrawal,  Journal  of  European 
Consumer and Market Law (EuCML) 2016, p. 
87). 

If  the  same  case  is  to  be  decided  under  the 
CRD,  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  will  be 
obliged to refer the case to the ECJ, since its 
reductionist  interpretation  of  Art  16  b  CRD 
may  infringe  the  full  harmonisation  principle 
of  the  CRD.  Consequently,  consumers  in 
Germany  may  be  worse  off  due  to  the  CRD, 
since  the  Federal  Supreme  Court  must  not 
upheld  its  consumer-friendly  jurisdiction  and 
there is a risk that the ECJ gives Art. 16 (b) 
CRD  a  less  consumer-friendly  interpretation 
(which  would  be  binding  for  the  German 
courts)   

of 

drying 

construction 

Rent 
heaters 
(concluded on the building site) does not fall 
within  the  exceptions  pursuant  to  Art  16  h 
CRD.  
In this case, the  consumer is better off than 
before  the  transposition  of  the  CRD.  Before 
the  transposition  of  the  CRD,  there  was  no 
withdrawal  right  for  off-premises  contracts 
where 
specifically 
consumer  had 
requested  a  visit  from  the  trader  (cf.  §  312 
para  2  Nr.  1  BGB  [pre  CRD]).  After  the 
transposition of Art. 16 (h) CRD into German 
law (in  §§ 312b and § 312 g para 1  Nr. 11 
BGB), consumers are granted, as a rule,  the 

the 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Level of 
Court 

National court 
judgements 

Significance of case 

right  to  withdraw  from  an  off-premises 
contract  even in a case where the consumer 
had  specifically  requested  a  visit  from  the 
trader.  The  court  narrowly  interpreted  the 
exception  from  this  withdrawal  right  in  Art. 
16  (h)  CRD:  Hiring  construction  drying 
heaters  is  not  to  be  considered  a  contract 
“for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  urgent 
repairs  or  maintenance”.  The  consumer 
therefore  has  –  other  than  before  the  CRD  - 
a  withdrawal  right,  even  if  the  contract  was 
concluded  at  the  building  site  after  the 
consumer  had  specifically  requested  a  visit 
from the trader. 

Paper  brochure  is  not  a  means  of  distance 
communication  which  allows  limited  space. 
Judgement concerns Art. 8 para 4 CRD 

A  permanent  stand  at  a  trade  fair  is  not 
considered  to  be  off-premises  but  counts  as 
a  ‘business  premise’.  Therefore,  there  is  no 
right  of  withdrawal  the  consumer  has  to  be 
informed about.  
As  per  recital  22  and  page  14  of  the 
Guidance,  the  classification  of  a  stand  at  a 
trade  fair  is  linked  to  whether  a  trader 
participates  in  a  trade  fair  held  a  regular  or 
occasional  basis.  If  on  a  regular  basis,  then 
the  CRD  is  applicable  if  on  a  one-off  or  an 
occasional basis, then the consumer does not 
have to be informed about their RoW. 
Recital  22  states  that  “business  premises 
should  include  premises  in  whatever  form 
(such as shops, stalls or lorries) which serve 
as a permanent or usual place of business for 
the  trader.  Market  stalls  and  fair  stands 
should  be  treated  as  business  premises  if 
they 
JUST 
interpretative  guidance  states  that  space 
“which  the  trader  uses  on  an  exceptional 
basis  for  his  business  activities  as  well  as 
private  homes  or  workplaces  should  not  be 
regarded as business premises.   
Art.  7  CRD  (Formal  requirements  for  off-
premises contracts) 
No phone number required for Art. 6 para 1 c 
CRD  if  sufficient  opportunities  via  other 
means  are  available  (e.g.  chat  or  mail). 
JUST 
to 
Court 
interpretative guidance document. 
Judgement  on  the  enforcement  action  taken 
by  Lithuanian  enforcement  authority,  the 

condition”.  The 

the  EC’s  DG 

refers 

fulfil 

this 

99 

DE 

DE 

Oberlande
sgericht ( 
higher 
regional 
court) 
Oberlande
sgericht ( 
higher 
regional 
court) 

Oberlandesgericht 
Düsseldorf, 18 
February 2016 - I-15 
U 54/15  

Oberlandesgericht 
Karlsruhe, 10 June 
2016 - 4 U 217/15  

DE 

LT 

Oberlande
sgericht ( 
higher 
regional 
court) 
Administr
ative 

Oberlandesgericht 
Köln, 8 July 2016 -  6 
U 180/15  

Vilnius, 17 September 
2015 - No. 12V-1,.  

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Level of 
Court 

National court 
judgements 

Significance of case 

court 

NL 

Rechtban
k 
(tribunal) 

Rechtbank Overijssel, 
23-08-2016, 
ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2016:
3230 

NL 

NL 

SE 

Rechtban
k 
(tribunal) 

Rechtban
k 
(tribunal) 

Rechtbank Oost-
Brabant, 13-05-2016, 
ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:
2425 
Rechtbank Rotterdam, 
26-11-2015, 
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:
8642 

Marknads
domstolen 
(Swedish 
Patent 
and 
Market 
Court) 

Marknadsdomstolen, 
15 August 2016 – 
2016:13 

http://www.marknads
domstolen.se/Filer/Avg
%C3%B6randen/Dom
2016-13.pdf 

against 

State  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Authority 
telecommunications 
(SCRPA) 
CGATES 
company 
(http://www.cgates.lt/lt/tv-ir-internetas) 
a 
provider  of  TV  and  internet  services).  A 
customer  with  a  "Mini"  payment  plan  for 
telecommunications  services  was  told  in  the 
contractual  information  upfront  that  they 
would pay a basic rate  to access a customer 
service  helpline  number  but  the  19900 
number  charged  a  premium  rate  instead. 
Upheld 
the  applicability  of  Article  21 
(Communication by telephone). 
Not  returning  unsolicited  school  photos  does 
not  result  in  an  agreement  with  the  school 
photographer  or  an  obligation  to  pay  or  to 
return  the  photos,  since  this  a  case  of  an 
unsolicited delivery of goods as referred to in 
Article  7:  7  paragraph  2  BW  (=transposition 
of Art. 27 CRD). This statutory provision also 
excludes a claim based on unjust enrichment 
(see Nr. 3.6 ss) 
Booth stall of a gas supplier in a MediaMarkt 
shop is not ‘off-premises’ in the sense of Art. 
2 (8) and (9) CRD (see Nr. 4.11 ss) 

hire 

(pre-ticked 

Dutch  Market  Authority  fined  travel  agents 
because  of  using  pre-ticked  boxes  against 
Art.  6:193b  (2)  BW  (=  transposition  of  Art. 
22  CRD)  when  selling  airline  tickets  and 
other travel products like sun holidays, car or 
motorhomes 
boxes 
concerned 
travel  and  /  or  cancellation 
insurance  or  automatically  added  hotel 
bookings  in  some  cases).  Court  held  that 
fines are justified (see Nr. 5.6.4) 
Case  concerning  right  to  withdrawal  from 
contract  (according  to  lagen  om  distansavtal 
2005:59  and  avtal  utanför  affärslokaler 
(distansavtalslagen)) brought by the Swedish 
Consumer 
Malmö 
Dansakademi  for  failing  to  comply  and  not 
publishing adequate information on the  right 
to withdraw from contracts for dance courses 
paid  for  upfront.  The  Market  Court  held  that 
dancing  lessons  do  not  fall  under  “services 
related  to  leisure  activities  if  the  contract 
provides  for  a  specific  date  or  period  of 
performance” in the sense of Art. 16 (l) CRD 
(cf. Nr. 29, 30 of the judgement).    

Ombudsman 

on 

•  In summary, 94 cases mostly relating to the CRD (and in a small number of cases to 
similar  provisions  in  predecessor  legislation  (i.e.  Council  Directive  85/577/EEC  and 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Directive  97/7/EC)  have  been  identified  in  total,  of  which  only  a  small  number  are 
likely  to  be  significant  from  a  case  law  perspective.  The  total  number  of  cases  may 
exceed this figure, but this is difficult to capture due to gaps in data availability.  

•  Since the Directive is relatively new, only one case has been referred to the CJEU for 

a preliminary ruling that was issued on 2 March 2017.  

•  In  most  instances,  cases  have  merely  checked  that  the  law  has  been  correctly 
applied.,  Arguably,  this  in itself  has  been  useful in  raising  awareness  about  the  core 
provisions  of  the  CRD  that  traders  must  comply  with  an  about  the  correct 
interpretation of the requirements.  

•  In  addition,  the  cases  that  have  been  brought  by  national  and  regional  enforcement 
authorities  against  traders  have  had  a  deterrent  effect  on  traders  that  went  against 
the  spirit  of  the  legislation  or  were  repeatedly  non-compliant.  This  should  help  to 
promote higher levels of compliance among traders in future.  

Examples  -  press  releases  were  issued  following  CRD-related  cases  by  some  national 
enforcement  authorities  (e.g.  seven  cases  in  the  Italian  energy  sector  of  repeated 
breaches  of  different  CRD  provisions).  These  were  designed  to  have  a  deterrent  effect 
through the high level of the financial penalties imposed. National authorities responding 
to  the  online  questionnaire  shared  the  view  that,  with  regard  to  non-compliance,  pre-
contractual information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts, i.e. Art. 6, 
may require enforcement (with 83% thinking that this would be quite to highly likely), as 
shown in Figure 3-42.   

Figure  3-42:  National  competent  authorities:  areas  within  the  CRD  requiring 
enforcement (Q 17) 

Q17 In which of the following areas within the CRD are there issues relating to 
non-compliance requiring enforcement by national enforcement authorities in 
your country? (N = 35)

Pre-contract: on premises (33)

2

17

5

2

6

Pre-contract: off premises (35)

Digital content (33)

1

Formal requirements (34)

RoW (34)

Exceptions from RoW (35)

RoW digital content (35)

Delivery & passing of risk (35)

2

2

Reimbursement (35)

6

Basic rate telephone (35)

Unjustified surcharges (34)

3

3

Ban pre-ticked boxes (33)

1

13

12

7

9

8

16

10

16

14

17

14

14

11

14

15

17

12

9

10

6

8

2

7

6

3

3

6

8

5

5

Inertia selling (32)

Other (13)

7

2

13

3

2

1

4

6

4

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

7

1

2

3

3

6

4

3

3

4

2

3

4

5

3

3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Highly likely

Quite likely

Not likely

Not likely at all

Don’t know

No opinion

101 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Summary of findings on effectiveness 

The main reason behind the CRD was to enhance the EU market by means of increasing 
consumer  confidence  and  removing  traders’  barriers  to  trade,  due  to  the  lack  of 
harmonised consumer legislation.  

During  the  interviews,  the  CRD  was  viewed  as  having  made  a  positive  difference  in 
consumer  protection.    Pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-
premises contracts, and the RoW were the provisions regarded to be the most positive.  

The  online  survey  has  however  highlighted  some  differences  depending  on  the  type  of 
contract.  Both consumers and consumer associations shared the views that the level of 
protection  for  digital  content  purchases  is  not  as  effective  as  for  goods  and  services.  
This is due to a number of reasons, such as the lack of awareness and understanding by 
both  consumers  and  traders  but  also  the  lack  of  compliance  with  specific  requirements 
(such  as  the  provision  of  a  withdrawal  form,  the  exceptions  from  the  RoW  for  digital 
content and provision of pre-contractual information about the trader).  Indeed, 39% of 
the  national  competent  authorities  replying  to  the  questionnaire  agreed  that  digital 
content  related  provisions  would  require  enforcement  and  some  thought  that  these 
would  be  of  concern  when  dealing  with  the  RoW.  The  views  of  the  stakeholders  about 
the  ability  of  national  authorities  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  CRD  were  quite  split, 
however.  

In  addition,  the  most  frequent  problems  on  compliance  appear  to  be  in  relation  to 
websites,  as  demonstrated  through  the  Consumer  Sweep  and  confirmed  through  the 
interviews.  However, some of the discussions with trade associations in relation to off-
premises contracts have confirmed that there are also very low levels of CRD compliance 
primarily  due  to  low  levels  of  awareness.  Accordingly,  some  trade  associations  have 
recognised that they need to do more to raise awareness among their members. 

Generally,  the  CRD  is  seen  to  have  delivered  in  increasing  consumers’  and  traders’ 
confidence  in  cross-border  purchases  and  sales.  However  a  number  of  factors  are 
reported to still be hindering the effectiveness of the Directive. These are the following: 

•  A lack of consumer and trader awareness and understanding of the CRD provisions. 
Despite efforts by the  EC and national competent authorities, there appears to be a 
number of provisions where awareness is still low, these include exemptions from the 
RoW  and  inertia  selling.  However,  the  Directive  is  considered  to  be  a  fairly  new 
Directive (although based on two previous ones), thus the low level of awareness on 
new specific provisions is unsurprising.  

•  Compliance  by  traders,  with  particular  regard  to  specific  provisions.  Although  the 
overall level of compliance with the CRD is considered to be good, there are specific 
provisions  that  traders  appear  to  have  more  difficulties  complying  with.    These 
include  providing  all  types  of  information,  including  all  relevant  information  about 
themselves,  and  the  RoW,  and  in  particular  the  provision  of  a  withdrawal  form. 
National competent authorities agreed that these aspects will require enforcement in 
the  future.  In  addition,  based  on  the  analysis  of  the  literature  and  consultation, 
compliance  appears  to  be  more  of  an  issue  for  specific  sectors,  such  as 
telecommunications and energy supply, and specific contracts, such as telephone and 
catalogue distance selling; and 

•  Enforcement:  there  are  mixed  views  as  to  the  ability  of  competent  authorities  to 
enforce  the  CRD;  although  most  competent  authorities  are  engaged  in  joint  actions 
and  pre-enforcement  actions,  they  are  not  being  seen  as  particularly  effective.  
Moreover, the number of legal cases and level of fines vary significantly by MS. The 

102 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

different level of enforcement across MS may reduce the effectiveness of the CRD in 
ensuring compliance when trading cross-border. 

Thus,  for  both  traders  and  consumers,  this  evaluation  has  shown  that  the  level  of 
awareness  and  understanding  is  low  on  specific  provisions  (e.g.  inertia  selling,  specific 
aspects  of  pre-contractual  information  and  digital  content)  but  on  others  the  level  of 
awareness  is  considered  to  be  higher,  such  as  the  RoW.  The  above  may  suggest  that 
although  no  further  awareness  raising  may  be  needed  on  the  RoW,  future  campaigns 
may  need  to  focus  on  other  rights  and  aspects  such  as  digital  content,  with  particular 
regard to the exemptions applicable to it (Art. 16 (i & m)).   

In  the  impact  assessment  that  accompanied  the  CRD  proposal  (CEC,  2008)  it  was 
mentioned  that  fragmentation  of  the  national  legislation  was  one  of  the  main  reasons 
traders  do  not  to  sell  cross-border.  According  to  the  survey,  the  regulatory  choices 
appear  not  to  have  had  a  significant  detrimental  impact  on  the  achievement  of  the 
objectives.    Differences  in  national  legislation  are  not  mentioned  as  a  reason  for  not 
conducting  cross-border  trade  suggesting  that  the  Directive,  through 
full 
harmonisation approach, has been effective in removing legislative barriers in consumer 
protection. 

its 

The  following  table  summarises  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  for  the  effectiveness 
criterion vis-à-vis the evaluation questions.  

Table 3-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its effectiveness 

Key to rating: 
0: no noticeable impact 
+: small positive impacts 
++: moderate positive impacts 
+++: significant positive impacts 
How  effective  has  the 
Directive 
in 
eliminating  the  obstacles 
for  businesses  carrying 
out economic activities in 
several 
EU  Member 
States? 

been 

 What  have  been 
impacts  on 
confidence and welfare? 

the 
consumer 

What  factors  influenced 
the 
achievements 
observed? 

-: small negative impacts 
--: moderate negative impacts 
---: significant negative impacts 

++/+++:  Traders  do  not  see  differences  in  implementation 
as  a  main  barrier  in  cross-border  trade.  The  regulatory 
choices  appear  not  to  have  had  a  significant  detrimental 
effect  on  traders.  However,  for  those  traders  that  do  sell 
cross-border and see some problems in so doing, differences 
in consumer protection rules remain an issue. Although these 
issues  affect  a  small  proportion  of  traders,  such  problems 
need acknowledgement.  
++/+++:  Most  consumers  and  their  associations  answering 
the  survey  felt  that  the  level  of  protection  was  moderate  or 
high when buying goods and services domestically and from 
other  EU countries, but less so for digital content.  Amongst 
the provisions that were most highly rated are the RoW and 
pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  distance  and 
off-premises  contracts.  The  exceptions  from  the  RoW  are 
considered  to  be  negative  or  very  negative  by  30%  of  the 
consumer associations responding.  
++/+++:  The  provisions  regarded  to  be  the  most  positive 
for consumer protection by consumers and their associations 
are the pre-contractual information requirements for distance 
and  off-premises  contracts  and  the  RoW.    For  cross-border 
purchases,  the  ban  on  pre-ticked  boxes 
is  seen  as 
particularly positive by the ECCs. 

However, there are some factors still believed to be affecting 
the effectiveness of the CRD. These are a lack of awareness 
&  understanding,  enforcement  and  compliance  with  specific 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 3-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its effectiveness 

Key to rating: 
0: no noticeable impact 
+: small positive impacts 
++: moderate positive impacts 
+++: significant positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 
--: moderate negative impacts 
---: significant negative impacts 

is 

level  of 
the 
What 
business  compliance  and 
how  does 
this  affect 
effectiveness? 

How  effective  has  the 
enforcement 
the 
Directive being? 

of 

Have 
unintended effects? 

there  been  any 

that 

these  aspects  will 

aspects of the CRD.  
+/+++:  there  are  specific  provisions  that  traders  appear  to 
have  more  difficulties  complying  with.    These  include 
providing  all  types  of  information,  including  all  information 
about  themselves,  and  the  RoW,  and  in  particular  the 
form.  National  competent 
provision  of  a  withdrawal 
authorities  agreed 
require 
enforcement  in  the  future.  The  level  of  compliance  also 
varies by sector (e.g. telecommunications and energy appear 
to be more problematic). 
+/+++: Impacts have been greater on some provisions than 
others.  Concerning  enforcement,  national  authorities  agreed 
that  work  should  focus  on  pre-contractual  information,  the 
RoW  and  those  provisions  concerning  digital  content  (in  this 
order).  The  views  of  stakeholders  on  the  ability  of  national 
authorities  to  enforce  the  CRD  is  quite  mixed  however; 
despite the survey findings suggesting that they are carrying 
through the imposition of penalties.  
++: Some positive effects are reported from exceptions from 
the RoW from the hotel sector, where traders have been able 
to pass  on price reductions based  on the exclusion from the 
RoW.  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

4  Efficiency of the CRD and its implementation 

  Overview of section 

Efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used by an intervention and 
the changes generated by the intervention (including unintended effects), which may be 
either  positive  or  negative.    Efficiency  in  the  context  of  the  CRD  refers  to  the  ratio  of 
inputs to outputs, in particular (and in line with recital 4 of the CRD): 

Striking  the  right  balance  between  a  high  level  of  consumer  protection  and  the 
competitiveness of enterprises 

Stakeholders were asked specific questions about the costs and benefits  of the different 
CRD provisions in order to help answer the evaluation questions, set out below.   

•  What  are  the  costs  and  benefits  (monetary  and  non-monetary)  associated  with  the 

application of Directive 2011/83/EU in the Member States? 

•  What  are  the  increased/reduced  costs  for  businesses,  such  as  administrative  and 
compliance costs or costs for handling complaints and returns, legal advice, etc.; 

•  What are the compliance/administrative costs of public authorities? 

•  What are the effects on SMEs and additional costs for companies that operate in only 

one Member State? 

•  What are the burdens and benefits for businesses arising from obligations on traders 
under the Directive at different stages of the transaction (i.e. pre-contractual stage, 
stage  of  conclusion  of  the  contract  and  post-contractual  stage),  in  particular, 
regarding their administrative costs and removal of barriers to cross-border trade?  

•  Which market sectors are affected by the provisions of the Directive? The assessment 
should identify which sectors have adapted more efficiently to the new requirements 
and which are characterised by more frequent breaches of the Directive's provisions. 

•  What are the specific challenges to SMEs, in particular micro enterprises, with respect 
to  the  implementation  of  the  Directive?  What  good  practices  in  terms  of  their  cost-
effective application can be identified? 

•  What,  if  any,  specific  provisions  in  the  Directive  can  be  identified  that  make  cost-
effective implementation more difficult and hamper the maximisation of the benefits? 
In particular, what is the (unnecessary/cumulative) regulatory burden identified? 

•  Were the outputs and effects achieved at a reasonable cost? Could the same results 
have  been  achieved  with  lower  costs  or  in  a  simpler  way?  Could  the  use  of  other 
policy  instruments  or  mechanisms  have  provided  better  cost-effectiveness?  What 
possibilities are there for simplification? 

105 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Through  the  different  data  collection  tools,  notably  the  interview  programme  and  the 
online  survey,  the  study  team  has  sought  to  identify  the  administrative  costs  and  the 
anticipated benefits of the CRD.  A sample of questions is given below. 

•  Have the requirements have an impact upon the costs for your business? 

•  To what extent are the full harmonised rules beneficial for your business? 

•  Do the benefits exceed the costs? 

•  How do you rate the provisions of the CRD for the competitiveness of traders? 

•  What are the costs to your organisation of the transposition and enforcement of the 

CRD? 

Most  stakeholders  have  not  been  able  to  provide  quantitative  estimates  of  costs  and 
benefits,  although  there  are  a  few  examples.  Some  useful  qualitative  information  has 
been obtained and this is presented below.  

Impacts on consumers 

As noted in Section 3, most consumers and their associations answering the survey felt 
that the level of protection was moderate or high when buying goods and services  as a 
result of the CRD implementation.  The EESC’s report notes that 37% of respondents to 
their questionnaire felt that consumer confidence in online shopping had increased since 
June  2014  and  31%  believed  that  confidence  had  increased  when  buying  cross-border. 
Similar  numbers  believed  that  this  had  stayed  the  same  (35%  and  33%  respectively) 
(EESC, 2017).  

National competent authorities were asked whether they had received any feedback  on 
the benefits from the consumers’ side on the CRD.  As can be seen from Figure 4-1, 47% 
of  national  competent  authorities  responding  have  received  positive  feedback  on  the 
benefits  from  the  CRD  in  general.    Among  the  provisions  most  highly  rated  are  the 
harmonised  RoW  across  the  EU-28  and  the  putting  in  place  of  a  common  set  of  pre-
contractual 
for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts.  
Conversely,  3%  of  competent  authorities  received  very  negative  feedback  on  the 
exceptions from the RoW whilst a further 10% received negative feedback on this same 
point.   

information  requirements 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  4-1:  National  competent  authorities’  feedback  from  consumers  on  the 
perceived benefits (Q 24) 

Q24 Has there been any specific feedback from consumers with 
regard to the perceived benefits of the CRD, for instance in relation 
to? (N = 31)

CRD in general (30)
Pre-contract: on premises (31)
Pre-contract: off premises (31)
Digital content (31)
Formal requirements (31)
RoW (31)
Exceptions from RoW (31)
RoW digital content (31)
Reimbursement (30)
Delivery & passing of risk (31)
Basic rate telephone (31)
Unjustified surcharges (31)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (30)
Inertia selling (31)
Other (14)

2
3
4

2
1

2
2

3

1

6

4
3
3

5

6

6
6

8

12
9

9

11

7

8

6
8

6

11

15

12
10

12
10

10

3

1

15

11

11

11

12
14

5

1

8
8

10
1

5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1
2
2
1
2
3
2
2

3
2
1
2

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very positive feedback

Positive feedback

No Feedback

Negative feedback

Very negative feedback No impact

Don’t know

Interestingly, for some Articles, a small percentage of competent authorities stated that 
there  has  not  been  any  impact  compared  with  the  predecessor  legal  regime,  which 
confirms the findings from the legal mapping which is that, for some Articles, several MS 
already had quite similar rules in place prior to the CRD. Among the Articles where there 
was a  relatively high response  rate in respect  of “no impact” were Article 18 (Delivery) 
and Article 20 (Passing of risk) (with both at 16%). 

Some  competent  authorities  did  however  provide  examples  of  how  consumers  had 
benefited  from  the  increased  level  of  protection  (although  this  may  not  just  be  due  to 
the CRD). A national competent authority stated that of the consumers enquiring at their 
helpdesk  in  relation  to  consumer  rights,  64%  indicated  they  intended  to  take  further 
action.  Another national competent authority revealed that 31% of consumers consulted 
in a recent research had made use of the 14 day cooling off period. Comments provided 
by national competent authorities are presented in the next box.  

107 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Free text from National Competent Authority survey Q 25:  Have you got any 
data on the uptake by consumers of the exercise of their rights under the CRD? 

We  do  know  that  64%  of  consumers  that  enquire  about  their  rights  at  our  helpdesk 
indicate that they intend to take action. 

As a result of media coverage of rights conferred by law, consumers have become more 
aware when shopping on line. 

In a recent consumer research service of 935 consumers, 31% had availed of the cooling 
off period. 

Only positive assessments of consumer associations and users of Valencia. 

Unfortunately,  most  national  competent  authorities  replying  to  the  questionnaire  could 
not  provide  data  on  the  uptake  by  consumers  of  the  exercise  of  their  rights  under  the 
CRD.  The survey however asked consumers about whether they had ever exercised the 
RoW after purchasing items and responses show that over 40% of consumers have.   As 
noted  in  section  3.6.2.2,  only  21%  of  these  have  not  experienced  any  problems 
however;  with  the  rest  noticing  problems  when  exercising  their  RoW,  particularly  on 
contacting the trader. Nearly half of this latter group however had received a full refund 
for their product.  

Figure 4-2: Consumers: Have you exercised your RoW? (Q 6) 

Q6 Have you exercised your right of withdrawal up to 14 days after the 
purchase? (N = 262)

3%

24%

16%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, very often

Yes, often

Yes, a couple of times

Yes, once

No, never

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Impacts on traders  

4.3.1  Costs to traders of the CRD 

Type of costs on traders from CRD 

Examples  of  the  types  of  costs  for  traders  in  complying  with  the  Directive  are:  human 
resource  costs,  such  as  familiarisation  costs  with  the  legislation,  management  time  to 
check  the  requirements  and  to  ensure  compliance,  updating  website  text  and  taking 
corresponding  actions  to  update  internal  processes  and  procedures  relating  to  the 
transaction process e.g. delivery, returns and RoW duration.  

The direct monetary costs include: getting external legal advice on compliance, engaging 
a web designer to redesign parts of websites to comply with CRD requirements such as 
putting  the  means  of  payment  on  a  home  page  or  early  in  the  transaction  process, 
adding a box in relation to the obligation to pay, etc.  

The 2008 Impact Assessment on the CRD64 by DG SANCO noted that the fragmentation 
of the legal framework in respect of distance and off-premises contracts prior to the CRD 
generated  compliance  costs  for  businesses  wishing  to  trade  cross-border.  The  costs  for 
trading  cross-border  were  found  to  be  significantly  higher  than  for  those  trading  only 
domestically,  due  to  the  additional  costs  associated  with  a  lack  of  a  common, 
harmonised  regulatory  framework,  with  common  rules  in  respect  of  the  duration  of  the 
RoW, delivery and returns.   Some of the additional costs were attributed to the need for 
traders  to  undertake  legal  research  or  to  use  a  professional  advisor  (e.g.  a  lawyer, 
accountant) to find out what were the applicable requirements in other countries where 
they wished to trade. It concluded that the benefits were expected to outweigh the costs 
overall (CEC, 2008). 

In  2008,  almost  half  of  the  75%  of  the  traders  who  did  not  sell  cross  border  indicated 
that they would start doing it if regulations were harmonised. The cost of fragmentation 
was regarded as a heavy burden on business. 

The  estimated  administrative  costs  imposed  by  EU  consumer  rights  law  to  businesses 
selling  only  domestically  were  5,526  Euro  for  distance  sellers  and  6,625  Euro  for  direct 
sellers.  These  costs  would  increase  to  9,276  Euro  for  distance  sellers  and  10,375  Euro 
for direct sellers wishing to sell to consumers located in one or two other EU  countries. 
Under  the  previous  regulatory  regime,  prior  to  the  CRD,  the  estimated  administrative 
costs for a business wanting to sell in all 27 MS are 70,526 Euro for distance sellers and 
71,625 Euro for direct sellers.  

According to the online survey, 51.6% (N=142) or  of  all traders  reported  selling cross-
border,  with  the  remainder  selling in  domestic  markets  only.  This  could  suggest  saving 
from harmonised information requirements. The vast majority of traders responding are 
engaged  in  distance  selling  by  e-commerce  both  domestically  and  cross-border  but  the 
numbers  of  traders  responding  is  low,  thus  the  reliability  of  the  findings  may  be 
limited.  Of these (n=80), and by number of countries they trade in, the findings were:   

•  15% of all 284 traders sell in 1 or 2 MS (other than their home country) (n=43) 

•  4% of the total 284 respondents trade in 3 to 5 MS (n=12); and 

•  9% of the total 284 respondents (N=25) trade in more than 5 to rest of the EU.  

So, for those companies replying to the survey this would equate to a saving of around 
€2.2m.  The  survey  revealed  however  that  only  3%  respondent  thought  the  costs  from 

64  COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a  directive  on  consumer  rights 

Impact Assessment Report 

109 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

the provision of pre-contractual information had reduced (refer to discussion below).  

Whilst  the  above  figures  are  useful  in  providing  a  baseline  quantification  estimate,  the 
methodology  through  which  these  costs  estimates  were  derived  is  not  clear  from  the 
impact assessment document.  It is also important to provide an  explanation as to why 
quantifying the costs and benefits of the CRD in monetary terms was not possible. In the 
following table, some of the main problems encountered are highlighted:  

Issue 

Description 

Lack of quantitative data on 
benefits  –  especially  from 
regulatory 
reduced 
fragmentation 

The  absence  of  longitudinal 
proxy  data  to  assess  the 
of 
in 
evolution 
shopping 
confidence 
cross-border 
among 
consumers. 

levels 

in 

Lack  of  data  on  the  %  of 
returns 

There were difficulties in obtaining any data on the actual 
costs  incurred  by  traders,  and  therefore  in  assessing 
in 
whether  the  anticipated 
compliance costs was achieved. Some traders interviewed 
provided  limited  feedback  on  costs  (analysed  later  in  this 
sub-section) but they were not able to quantify how much 
they had spent complying with the CRD, either in terms of 
human or financial resources.  

level  of  cost  reduction 

In  the  absence  of  data  on  benefits,  it  would  have  been 
useful to obtain data on proxy indicators, such as the level 
of confidence in shopping cross-border among consumers, 
and its evolution over time (i.e. pre-CRD and post-CRD). 

Although  periodic  Eurobarometer  surveys  have  been 
undertaken  (most  recently  in  2014  but  before  the  CRD 
came  into  effect),  the  EC  would  need  to  commission 
regular  Eurobarometer  surveys  (e.g.  annually  or  bi-
annually). 

Robust longitudinal data on changes in levels of consumer 
confidence would allow benefits to be quantified indirectly 
(since  attribution  would  have  to  be  assessed  taking  into 
account  stakeholder 
theory,  reduced 
feedback). 
national  regulatory  fragmentation  across  EU-28  should 
have increased consumer confidence.  

In 

by 

and 

their 

traders 

Data  on  the  %  of  returns  was  regarded  as  commercially 
sensitive 
representative 
organisations,  and  will  also  vary  significantly  between 
sectors. However, since a small number of traders pointed 
to  the  increased  costs  under  the  CRD  associated  with 
them  having  to  pay  the  costs  of  returns  (shipping  and 
refunding  the  whole  amount  including  unrecoverable 
credit  card  charges),  such  data  would  be  very  useful  in 
being  able  to  estimate  the  total  costs  of  returns  due  to 
changes in the obligations on traders under the CRD. 

Compliance  costs  are  over-
simplified in the IA 

In  the  2008  IA,  compliance  costs  are  estimated  for 
distance  and  direct  sellers  selling  i)  in  the  domestic 
market and ii) cross-border. However, the actual costs will 
vary significantly depending on:  

•  The sector 

•  The  type  of  good  in  question  e.g.  in  relation  to 
distance  selling,  whether  the  trader  is  selling  (1) 
high value, low volume products or 2) high volume, 
low  value  products.  This  will  influence  the  cost 

110 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Issue 

Description 

The  legal  regime  post-CRD 
was  perceived  to  be  quite 
similar  to  the  pre-existing 
legislation 
applied 
under  the  two  predecessor 
Directives in many MS 

that 

drivers  for  returns  such  as  return  postage  costs, 
the non-recoverable credit card fee, etc.  

Although  there  are  a  number  of  new  provisions  and 
requirements  in  the  CRD  that  did  not  feature  in  previous 
legislation relating to distance and off-premises contracts, 
in many countries, it was perceived that the CRD had not 
involved  substantive  changes  in  their  country  since  the 
legislation had some similarities previously (e.g. especially 
in MS where there was already a 14-day RoW pre-CRD). It 
was  therefore  especially  difficult  for  traders  and  their 
associations to quantify what level of administrative costs 
and burdens arose specifically from the CRD. 

In  spite  of  the  above  difficulties,  some  online  survey  and  interview  feedback  was 
obtained on perceptions of costs. Selected examples are provided below. 

Traders  responding  to  the  online  survey  were  asked  about  the  costs  of  specific  CRD 
requirements.  Their  answers  are  depicted  in  Figure  4-3.  The  largest  percentage  (67%) 
agreed  that  pre-contractual  information  requirements  had  either  greatly  increased  or 
just  increased  their  costs,  followed  by  formal  requirements  (55%)  and  reimbursement 
policies  stemming  from  the  RoW  (44%).  Stakeholders  were  eager  to  point  out  that 
ultimately  any  additional  costs  borne  by  traders  due  to  the  costs  of  the  CRD  would  be 
passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In the short term, however, traders 
would have to absorb the costs. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 4-3: Costs on traders from complying with the CRD rules (Q 16) 

Q16 Have the requirements of consumer legislation had an impact 
upon costs for your business? (N = 103)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (90)

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (91)

13%

16%

Language policy (78)

Digital content (76)

8%

5%

23%

25%

Formal requirements (89)

RoW  (84)

12%

12%

43%

31%

34%

32%

10%

9%

51%

32%

32%

20%

3%

9%

12%

17%

19%

7%

23%

20%

19%

35%

4%

14%

Exceptions from RoW (74)

Delivery & passing of risk (72)

7%

8%

20%

21%

38%

38%

11%

7%

22%

24%

Reimbursement (74)

12%

32%

30%

7%

18%

Basic rate telephone (72)

6%

13%

39%

Surcharges for means of payment (73)

1%

22%

41%

Ban pre-ticked boxes (75)

4%

11%

Inertia selling (72)

10%

10%

45%

35%

17%

11%

12%

17%

24%

23%

27%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Greatly increased costs

Increased costs

No impact

Reduced costs

No opinion

Don’t know

The  EESC  report  on  the  evaluation  of  the  CRD  concluded  that,  according  to  roughly  a 
third  of  respondents  (37%  of  54  civil  society  organisations  replying  to  the 
questionnaire), the compliance costs for business have increased since June 2014. Out of 
the  twenty  organisations  who  considered  that  compliance  costs  have  increased,  fifteen 
were  employers'  representatives.  For  20%  of  respondents,  the  costs  have  stayed  the 
same. More than a third (39%) do not know (EESC, 2017).  

Traders  commented  on  what  they  perceived  as  the  costs  of  the  CRD.    Although  there 
have  been  minimal  comments  on  the  administrative  costs  of  meeting  other  MS, 
consultation  undertaken  for  this  study  has  highlighted  costs  to  traders  from  particular 
provisions of the Directive (as depicted in figure 4-3); in particular from the following: 

•  Pre-contractual information requirements (Articles 5 & 6); 

•  Formal requirements (Art. 8); 

•  The RoW( Art 9); and 

•  Reimbursement (Art. 13 & 14) 

A  limited  number  of  Respondents  interviewees  have  been  eager  to  provided  different 
examples of the types of costs that they faced in comparison with the predecessor legal 
regime (see box below). 

When  a  purchase  is  made,  the  business  pays  card  processing  fees  and  delivery  with 
insurance  cover,  whereas  if  a  consumer  returns  goods  they  tend  to  do  so  using  the 
cheapest delivery option (often without insurance).  The business then has to spend time 
checking  that  the  product  is  in  a  re-saleable  condition,  as  well  as  bear  the  cost  of 

112 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

delivery and card processing for an item that was ultimately returned.  

Once  a  consumer  has  exercised  their  RoW  and  returned  the  good,  the  trader  could  not 
subsequently  sell  the  good  as  new.    In  addition,  the  stakeholder  felt  that  claiming 
compensation from the consumer on the basis of diminished value of the good was not 
feasible  in  practice,  thus  there  were  costs  for  the  trader  resulting  from  the  consumer 
deciding to withdraw.   

4.3.1.1  Costs from pre-contractual information requirements 

interviewees  expressed 

Some 
information 
requirements  were  imposing  an  unnecessary  burden  on  traders.  It  was  suggested  by 
traders and by industry associations that  there could be merits in simplifying the list of 
information requirements. There are some examples of best -practice with regard to pre-
contractual information requirements. 

the  pre-contractual 

the  view 

that 

Best practice – information requirements for the finance sector in Italy  

In  Italy,  in  some  sectors  (e.g.  finance,  insurance  and  bank  sectors)  information 
requirements are included in very long documents which, even if provided to consumers, 
are not read by the majority. This may lead to a  reduced level  of  consumer awareness 
about  their  rights,  reduced  transparency  and  affect  consumer  confidence.  In  order  to 
reduce  this  type  of  risk,  the  Italian  public  authority  responsible  for  regulating  financial 
markets  developed  an  information  leaflet  to  help  reduce  the  complexity  of  information 
obligations.  

Similar problems have been reported by business associations and the national authority 
in Germany. 

Best practice for pre-contractual information requirements for direct selling 

A  trade  association  provides  CRD-compliant  print  versions  of  retail  order  forms  for  its 
members,  which  includes  different  sectors  in  off-premises  selling.  These  forms  are 
shipped to direct sellers.  

There  were  initial  one-off  costs  for  direct  sellers  in  ensuring  CRD  compliance,  such  as: 
legal costs to  check that forms are compliant, translation costs  for those  countries that 
have chosen under regulatory choices to put in place language requirements. However, 
once  these  compliant  forms  were  developed,  an  advantage  under  a  maximum 
harmonisation approach was that traders could use the same order forms across the EU 
(with some exceptions in MS where language requirements were applied). 

Moreover,  there  was  a  concern  among  some  stakeholders  that  the  amount  of 
information  is  sometimes  disproportionate  to  the  product  being  bought.    This  was 
highlighted  for  instance  by  distance  selling  associations  and  their  member  companies, 
particularly  in  respect  of  low-value  consumer  goods.    This  issue  is  illustrated  by  the 
following example, which was provided during the interview programme.  

Proportionality of information requirements of low-value consumables 

Lots  of  items  sold  through  direct  selling  are  small  items,  which  sell  at  low  cost  e.g. 
lipstick, candles. There is an issue as to whether the information requirements under the 
UPCD  and  the  CRD  respectively  are  proportionate.  For  instance,  in  order  to  sell  a  lip 
stick, the direct seller may have to provide the consumer with a written document with 
4  sides  of  information  requirements  on  2  sheets  of  paper  in  small  text.  There  is  no 
differentiation in the information requirements set out in Art. 6(1) depending whether a 
consumer is purchasing a washing machine for 500 EU or a lipstick for 15 EUR (unless 
the particular MS concerned has opted out under the regulatory choices available under 

113 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Art. 6(8) under the minimum 50 EUR threshold.  

A disproportionate amount of information is required. 

There is also a risk of duplication in the provision of information requirements under Art. 
6(1) and Art. 7(4) of the UPCD, as illustrated in the following practical example.   

Direct selling  –  one route through which direct  sellers work is by organising a party at 
which  products  are  sold.  Example  –  a  presentation  about  a  new  product,  a  set  of 
candles, The party planner will first have to explain to the prospective consumers about 
the  product,  then  move  from  the  marketing  information  stage  (when  the  UPCD  is 
applicable)  on  to  the  selling  stage  when  pre-contractual  information  will  have  to  be 
provided  either  orally,  in  writing  or  both.  Then  the  same  (or  at  least  broadly  similar) 
information  has  to  be  included  in  the  same  order  form.  Effectively,  information  is 
provided  to  the  consumer  3  times.  Whilst  the  information  might  be  needed  in  written 
form so that the consumer can keep the information and trace it back, providing it three 
separate times is “overkill”.  

4.3.1.2  Costs from information and formal requirements for distance contracts 

Further costs for traders were highlighted such as the need for technical adjustments on 
websites to meet the requirements for providing information when concluding a contract 
and  carrying out updates to  ensure that the new information requirements for distance 
selling  were  met.  This  was  also  confirmed  through  the  interview  programme.  For 
example, an interviewee from a trade association highlighted the costs that the provision 
of  pre-contractual  information  requirements  had  had  upon  its  members  as  a  result  of 
having  to  change  their  websites  to  comply.    However,  when  asked  about  costs 
estimates, these could not be provided.  

Art. 8(1) puts a requirement on traders to make information available to consumers in a 
way  appropriate  to  the  means  of  distance  communication  used  in  plain  and  intelligible 
language.  However,  some  stakeholders  believed  that  the  amount  of  information  can  be 
overwhelming  for  consumers  and  noted  that  the  information  provided  in  terms  and 
conditions, as required in the information requirements of the CRD, are not read by the 
majority of consumers (IT, DE, NL).  One possibility discussed to make consumers aware 
of  their  rights  and  probably  make  information  easier  to  digest  is  the  use  of  icons.  Yet, 
the  benefits  of  presenting  pre-contractual  information  by  means  of  icons  are  not  yet 
clear (refer to Section 6 for more detailed discussion).  

Concerns  were  raised  among  some  stakeholders  as  to  whether  it  is  realistic  to  display 
such  information  upfront  on  the  mobile  versions  of  e-retailers’  websites  without  using 
lots of hyperlinks.  Some trade associations  were concerned about the costs  of website 
redesign  to  ensure  that  websites  were  CRD-compliant,  for  instance,  with  providing 
information  on  the  means  of  payment  either  on  the  home  page,  or  at  the  least  at  the 
beginning  of  the  ordering  process  (i.e.  Art.  8(3))  and  confirming  that  there  is  an 
obligation  to  pay  (Art.  8(2)).  Although  the  redesign  tweaks  required  are  not  always 
technically  that  demanding,  some  traders  stated  that  they  needed  to  work  with  an 
external  web  designer  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  website  follows  the  transactional 
process logic in the Directive, with this adding to their costs.  

4.3.1.3  The RoW, reimbursements and impacts on traders 

A few stakeholders were keen to highlight the costs related to consumers exercising the 
RoW (Article 13) and the consequences of Article 14, with respect to the responsibility of 
consumers and traders to reach an agreed estimate of the diminished value of goods (in 
the case of the RoW where goods have been used more than necessary to establish their 
nature,  characteristics  and  functioning).      Specific  suggestions  for  improvement  in  the 

114 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

EESC’s evaluation report included “easing the no-costs” rule for services after withdrawal 
(Art.  14(4(a)).  Traders  noted  that  there  is  scope  to  abuse  the  CRD,  with  consumers 
purchasing items with the intent to return these after use.  Moreover, a few stakeholders 
were  keen  to  mention  the  financial  risks  associated  with  having  to  refund  the  money 
before they receive the product back from consumers.  

Feedback  was  also  received  from  some  stakeholders  through  the  interview  programme 
about the practical difficulties of  calculating the diminished value for  the return  of used 
goods,  on  potential  financial  losses  from  reimbursing  before  receiving  the  goods  back 
and  the  diminished  value  of  returned  used  goods  (when  allegedly  the  consumer  is  due 
for  a  full  refund).  Particular  regard  was  paid  to  sectors  such  as  textiles  and  electronic 
and electric products.  In January 2017, the  Danish Chamber of  Commerce  conducted a 
survey on the implementation of Art 14(2).  Only 1 out  of the 18 respondents said that 
they,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  always  will  assess  and  estimate  the  depreciation.  Nearly 
all  respondents  lacked  the  resources  to  assess  and  report  the  impairment  of  each 
returned,  used  product.  As  a  result,  they  tend  to  refund  the  full  amount  and  also  to 
avoid bad consumer reviews.  This can jeopardise the general objective quoted in recital 
4  to  strike  the  right  balance  between  consumer  protection  and  the  competitiveness  of 
enterprises.  

Obligations of the trader in the event of withdrawal and the issue of consumers 
returning used goods having a diminished value 

Under  Article  13,  traders  need  to  reimburse  without  undue  delay  and  in  any  case  not 
later  than  14  days  once  the  consumer  has  supplied  evidence  of  having  sent  back  the 
goods. If such evidence is received earlier than when the trader receives the goods, the 
trader will have to reimburse within 14 days missing out on the  opportunity to account 
for  diminished  value  in  their  refund.    One  stakeholder  commented  that  it  should  be 
clarified  that  the  trader  only  has  to  provide  a  refund  once  they  have  received  and 
inspected the returned goods.  

Several  stakeholders  raised  concerns  about  the  method  used  to  calculate  diminished 
value  and  also  the  losses  associated  with  the  diminished  value  from  the  return  of  used 
goods.  Art 14(2) states that the consumer "shall only be liable for any diminished value 
of  the  goods  resulting  from  the  handling  of  the  goods  other  than  what  is  necessary  to 
establish  the  nature,  characteristics  and  functioning  of  the  goods".  Recital  47  then 
provides  further  clarity  and  states  that  "some  consumers  exercise  their  right  of 
withdrawal  after  having  used  the  goods  to  an  extent  more  than  necessary  to  establish 
the  nature,  characteristics  and  the  functioning  of  the  goods.  In  this  case  the  consumer 
should not lose the right to withdraw but should be liable for any diminished value of the 
goods”.    A  number  of  specific  issues  were  raised.  Firstly,  there  may  be  disagreement 
between the consumer and trader as to how extensively the good is used and therefore 
a  discrepancy  in  estimating  its  value.  Whilst  ADR  mechanisms  may  be  able  to  resolve 
such  disagreements,  traders  perceived  that  there  were  difficulties  in  estimating 
diminished value. This may also depend on the type of good and sector in question. For 
instance,  although  not  common,  some  traders  in  the  retail  sector  had  experience  of 
consumers  returning  goods  that  had  visibly  been  worn.  Given  consumer  preference  for 
brand  new  goods,  the  trader  viewed  the  products  as  having  negligible  value.  Another 
online  retailer  pointed  to  the  box  being  opened  as  having  a  disproportionately  adverse 
impact in terms of diminished value.  

Another retailer consulted during the interviews pointed out that there may be additional 
losses for traders selling high-end electrical or technology-oriented products from having 
goods  “out  of  action”  when  these  are  returned  several  weeks  after  they  were  originally 
dispatched,  especially  when  the  product  is  the  very  latest  product  line  and  its  value  is 
intrinsically linked to how new the item is. For instance, it may take up to 7-14 days to 
dispatch  and  deliver  a  product  (especially  when  delivering  to  other  countries).  The 
consumer then has 14 days to examine the product and may try it out. If they then take 

115 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

the  full  14  day  and  then  return  the  product,  there  are  associated  opportunity  costs  for 
the trader and implications for diminished value if it is the latest model.  

Stakeholders  were  asked  to  estimate  the  percentage  level  of  returns  from  the  RoW  (in 
order to be able to quantify costs). In most cases the online retailers and marketplaces 
asked  either  regarded  this  information  as  commercially  sensitive  or  did  not  have 
estimates  available.  One  trader  estimated  that  between  2%  and  4%  of  goods  were 
returned  but  they  emphasised  that  the  level  of  returns  would  be  greatly  dependent  on 
the  sector  and  the  type  of  products  being  sold  online.  There  is  evidence  available 
through desk  research, that returns are much higher for  some  sectors,  such as textiles 
and  fashion  retailers.  For  instance,  “retailers  in  the  US  report  a  return  rate  of  between 
20% and 40% for online sales”65. In Europe, this rate was viewed as being lower (due to 
cultural  differences),  according  to  one  trade  association,  but  is  still  higher  for  clothes 
sales than in other sectors.  The online survey has revealed that 40% of the consumers 
responding  have  availed  their  RoW.  The  consumer  survey  also  showed  that  for  those 
that  experience  a  problem  with  the  RoW,  half  received  a  full  refund  for  their  product 
(refer to Section 3.6.6.2). 

The RoW and educational services 

An  issue  raised  in  relation  to  services  was  that  educational  service  providers  are 
particularly affected by  the  extension  of the RoW.  There is a particular issue as to how 
consumers  may  exercise  their  RoW  if  the  provision  of  services  has  already  started 
without negatively impacting the trader. Whilst provision is made for this eventuality in 
the  CRD,  practical  implementation  difficulties  were  identified  relating  to  consumers 
cancelling  services  they  had  already  received  and  the  need  to  estimate  the  amount  in 
proportion to what has been provided until the withdrawal. 

There are however goods and services exempted from the RoW. Article 16 refers to the 
exemptions  from  the  RoW.  The  literature  review  and  consultation  undertaken  for  this 
study has highlighted a number of issues with regard to the application of this Article in 
practice  for  a  small  number  of  sectors,  i.e.  the  heating  oil  and  the  online  bidding 
platforms. 

With  regard  to  the  heating  oil  sector,  the  German  Federal  Supreme  Court  determined 
that a consumer’s RoW from a distance sales contract for heating oil was not exempted 
by the relevant German Civil Code. The German association representing the heating oil 
retailers,  who  are  mainly  small  companies,  has  claimed  that  this  interpretation  is 
excessively  narrow,  and  had  resulted  in  a  significant  increase  of  cancellations  of  the 
contracts in the two months following the judgement, due to the attention it received in 
the German newspapers.  

65   See 

accessed 
https://econsultancy.com/blog/65026-how-fashion-ecommerce-retailers-can-reduce-online-returns/  

ecommerce 

returns”, 

retailers 

fashion 

reduce 

online 

“How 

can 

at:  

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

RoW and Heating oil distribution 

On 17 June 2015, the German Federal Supreme Court ruled that the consumer’s RoW as 
transposed  into  national  law  under  Directive  97/7/EC  applies  in  distance  contracts  for 
heating  oil  deliveries  (case  reference  VIII  ZR  249/14)66.    In  particular,  the  German 
Federal  Supreme  Court  stated  that  the  objective  from  the  exception  from  the  RoW 
regarding purchases of goods for which price is dependent on fluctuations in the financial 
markets  (as  for  Art.  16(b)  of  the  CRD)  is  to  limit  speculation;  thus  this  exception 
requires  a  speculative  element  of  the  contract  that  cannot  be  found  in  heating  oil 
contracts (Henning-Bodewig, F. 201667).   

In  this  specific  case  in  respect  of  heating  oil  prices,  it  tends  to  happen  that  there  is  a 
period  of  several  weeks  between  the  order  date  and  the  delivery  date  of  heating  oil. 
Because the price which heating oil customers in Germany are contractually required to 
pay is the price at the  time of  ordering, many customers tend to cancel their orders if, 
between the order date and delivery date, the price keeps falling. They then place a new 
order at a cheaper price. 

This is particularly problematic for Small and Medium-sized companies (SMEs), because 
they buy in oil at current prices in line with their order volumes only to find subsequently 
that they cannot deliver it, or have to deliver it at lower prices, and distributors do not 
have a RoW vis à vis the refinery in case the consumer cancels his/her contract. In the 
heating oil market there is a high price transparency that can lead  consumers to easily 
withdraw from the contracts just to benefit from a lower price. 

Work  undertaken  by  the  Institut  der  deutschen  Wirtschaft  Köln  (Institute  for  Economic 
Research  Cologne)  has  suggested  that  heating  oil  is  subject  to  fluctuations  in  price 
dependent on international crude oil markets and that these fluctuations are independent 
of  the  heating  oil  distributor  (the  trader  in  CRD  terms)68.      However,  according  to  the 
ruling by the German Supreme court, the consumer may decide to invoke their RoW and 
re-order  at  the  lower  price.    Oil  distributors  are,  in  turn,  unable  to  cancel  their  orders 
with  the  refineries.    Using  10  years  of  data  (2006  to  2015)  and  applying  assumptions 
about delivery periods (e.g. volume delivered within 4-8 days of ordering, or 9-12 days 
of  ordering),  it  has  been  estimated  that  a  small  distributor  with  one  tanker  could  lose 
around €130 000 per year68.   

66   Although the contract in this case pre-dated the implementation of the CRD, thus the decision was made in 
relation to the Distance Sales Directive, the wording in the German Civil Code that implements the CRD is 
basically the same as that which implemented the Distance Sales Directive, suggesting that the exemption 
from RoW still holds under the CRD 

67   Henning-Bodewig, F. (2016):  Distance sales of heating oil and the consumer’s right of withdrawal – a fair 

balance? Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, Volume 5 pp73-116. 

68   Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln (2016):  Economic Consequences of the New Right of Withdrawal in 
Distant  Heating  Oil  Sales,  Fundamental  Decision  of  the  German  Federal  Court  of  Justice  (BGH)  on 
6/17/2015, VIII ZR 249/14, EconoimExpert Opinion of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research and IW 
Consult GmbH, Uniti Federal Association of Medium-sized Mineral Oil Companies 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

With  regard  to  online  platforms  for  auction  purposes,  consultation  undertaken  for  this 
study has also highlighted the costs  from the  RoW. Under Art 16 (k), distance and off-
premises  contracts  concluded  at  public  auctions  are  excluded  from  the  RoW.  Recital  24 
defines public auction as follows: 

A  public  auction  implies  the  traders  and  consumers  attend  or  are  given  the 
possibility to attend… the use of online platforms for auction purposes should not 
be considered as a public auction within the meaning of this Directive.  

This  means  that  RoW  will  generally  apply  to  goods  sold  to  consumers  using  online 
auction sites (when these are exclusively online but only if the seller is officially a trader 
and  not  a  private  individual  as  the  CRD  does  not  apply  to  C2C  transactions69  ).  In  the 
opinion of the consultees, this has created an ‘unfair situation’ where online-only auction 
platforms have to provide a RoW but public auctions do not.    An estimate of the costs 
from the RoW was provided by an online auction platform (see box below). 

Online platform for auction purposes - the costs of application of the RoW and 
non-exception 

The total volume of sales cancelled based on the RoW for 2017 has been estimated at 7 
million  euros  (based  on  the  volume  in  previous  years  and  the  expected  growth  of  the 
company over 2017). The total company turnover in 2015 is reported to be between 10 
to  50  million  euros.  This  means  a  loss  of  profits  (repaid  commissions)  of  1.1  million 
euros.  Out-of-pocket  costs  for  handling  the  RoW  requests  roughly  amount  to  1.5  to  2 
million euros (based on a percentage of the total cost base).  

For the sellers at the auctions the 7 million euro volume translates to a loss of profit of 
5.9 million euros. 

Stakeholders have also mentioned losses associated with the RoW from the provision of 
digital  content.  In  particular,  in  the  context  of  streaming  and  downloading  digital 
content, it has been highlighted by traders that prompting the consumers to decline on 
their  RoW  is  sometimes  not  feasible  during  the  shopping  process,  as  mentioned  in 
Section 3.6.2.2. As a result, some traders still apply a 14 days “no questions ask” refund 
policy  rather  than  applying  the  eligible  exceptions,  allowed  under  Art.  16,  in  order  to 
avoid losing customers.   

Although  some  exceptions  from  the  RoW  have  been  mentioned  to  have  a  negative 
impact  for  traders,  not  all  exceptions  from  the  RoW  were  regarded  to  be  negative  by 
respondents. Interviews highlighted that the provision of accommodation (other than for 
residential purpose) is an exception available to MS which has benefited the hotel sector 
significantly.    Consumers  also  benefit  through  lower  prices  (as  savings  are  passed  on) 
and a wider choice available when making their purchase.   

Benefits to traders from RoW exemptions 

The best provision for the hotel sector is that related to the exemptions from the right of 
withdrawal. However, this exemption also applied prior to the CRD implementation.  The 
exemption from the right of withdrawal is good because it allows to pass costs savings to 
the consumers. In addition, it is frequent practice that different prices are offered on the 
basis of the possibility to amend and cancel the booking. The consumer can benefit from 
a lower price if they resign from the right to cancel the booking.  

69   Online platforms for auction purposes tend to combine both B2C and C2C transactions.  

118 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

A  respondent  to  the  OPC  also  highlighted  the  benefits  of  the  exception  for 
accommodation.    They  felt  that  the  exception  resulted  in  greater  flexibility  for  hoteliers 
and  consumers,  since  it  enabled  hotels  to  have  generous  cancellation  policies  for 
bookings  that  were  made  far  in  advance,  and  price  promotions  for  late  but  non-
refundable bookings. 

4.3.1.4  Costs from other provisions 

Other provisions where costs have been  reported include inertia selling. In particular, a 
main  issue  with  this  article  has  been  raised  by  the  commodities  sector,  such  as  water 
supply  companies.  It  has  been  argued  that  this  article  should  not  apply  to  water 
companies  or  be  rephrased.      It  needs  to  be  noted  that,  under  Article  27,  it  is  not  the 
supply  of  water  that  is  prohibited  but  the  request  for  payment  when  this  has  not  been 
solicited.  However,  this  is  not  the  case  when  the  trader  is  under  a  legal  or  contractual 
obligation to supply the service. Thus, there may be a problem with the interpretation of 
the Art.   No detailed information has been provided on the costs from the application of 
this article however.  Currently, this case is being addressed in court.  

Inertia selling and water companies 

Generally,  water  supply  is  a  default  provision  at  a  residence  prior  to  the  signing  of  the 
contract  (say  when  a  person  moves  residence).  For  contracts  on  water  supply,  district 
heating  and  electricity  therefore,  the  article  on  inertia  selling  appears  to  raise  legal 
uncertainty  to  traders  (moreover,  when  the  consumer  has  little  choice  to  choose 
between service providers as is the case with water supply). 

A recent court judgement in the NL has interpreted that Art.27 applies verbatim to water 
supply;  in  other  words,  the  consumer  does  not  need  to  pay  in  absence  of  contract 
(because of lack of consent and the lack of reaction of the consumer to letters from the 
water company should not be interpreted as consent). Appeal is currently pending. 

The  water  company  has  argued  that  the  Directive  or  the  guidance  accompanying  the 
Directive  should  clarify  that  consciously  turning  on  the  tap  and  using  water  should  be 
interpreted as a consumer expressing agreement to the supply and thus payment can be 
requested as this is no longer an unsolicited delivery.  

Although this example may be considered to be anecdotal, it is likely that it re-occurs in 
other MS as the supply of commodities tends to be a highly-concentrated market which 
is also regulated to a significant degree. This example may thus merit further attention.  

In  addition,  examples  were  provided  of  some  types  of  additional  costs  stemming  from 
the CRD. For  example,  a number  of stakeholders pointed  to the website  redesign costs 
associate  with  ensuring  CRD  compliance.  This  involves,  checking  that  the  website  is 
CRD-compliant, which will include, inter alia, ensuring that the website includes a button 
indicating that there is a clear obligation to pay, checking that the means of payment is 
explicitly  clear  at  the  start  of  the  online  transaction  process,  updating  terms  and 
conditions  to  ensure  that  these  are  fully  compatible  with  the  information  requirements, 
etc.    It  was  noted  by  some  trade  associations  that  some  firms  will  try  to  achieve 
compliance  by  themselves,  so  the  costs  will  mainly  consist  of  management  time,  but 
many firms will face  external costs in working with external website developers. Larger 
firms may also pay an external lawyer or advisor to check their website’s compliance.  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

4.3.2  Benefits to traders  

Traders  were  asked  about  the  different  types  of  benefits  that  may  have  arisen  from 
complying with the rules laid down in the CRD. As depicted in Figure 4-4, 30% of traders 
did  not  identify  there  being  any  benefits  but  a  greater  percentage  thought  that 
consumers whose rights are respected come back and shop again with the same trader 
(35%) and bring/ attract other consumers (39%).  

Figure  4-4:  Traders’  views  on  benefits  from  complying  with  the  CRD  rules  (Q 
22) 

Q22 What are the benefits for businesses from complying with the 
CRD rules? (N = 150)

Consumers whose rights are respected come back
(53)

Consumers whose rights are respected bring/attract
other consumers (58)

35%

39%

Consumers whose rights are not respected discourage
other consumers (38)

25%

Compliant and trusted businesses can sell at higher
prices (15)

10%

There are no benefits (45)

30%

No opinion / don't know (19)

13%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

NB Figure 4-4: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

In detailed responses to question 22 of the survey, traders highlighted that the CRD had 
improved  customer  service  and  after-sales  care  within  competitive  markets,  which  in 
turn had helped to build consumer trust.  However, some traders felt the CRD was better 
suited to larger retailers/traders who can build in such requirements into their processes 
and policies more easily, and that small traders were already too burdened by legislation 
and having to compete on a small profit margin in competitive markets, which can easily 
be eroded if there is an increase in the percentage of consumers that exercise their RoW.    

Although traders answering the survey did not notice an increase in sales as a result of 
the CRD, a third of respondents consulted under the EESC’s evaluation agreed that intra 
EU  cross-border  online  sales  had  increased  since  2014  (EESC,  2017).  According  to  the 
most  recent  annual  surveys  on  ICT  usage,  online  purchases  by  internet  users  in  2016 
increased  by  16  percentage  points  compared  to  2007  and  3%  since  2014,  when  the 
Directive was implemented. The proportion of e-shoppers varied considerably across MS 
however,  ranging  from  18 %  of  internet  users  in  RO  to  87 %  in  the  UK70.  From  an 
evaluation perspective,  it is quite difficult to disentangle how far this increase is due to 
the CRD alone, as opposed to other factors, but many stakeholders confirmed that there 
is growing interest in cross-border online shopping in order to benefit from lower prices 

70 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/E-commerce_statistics_for_individuals  

120 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

and  stated  that  the  CRD  is  one  of  the  factors  that  helps  to  give  consumers  increased 
confidence.  

Free text from Traders survey Q 22: In your view, what are the benefits for 
businesses from complying with the rules laid down in the CRD? 

In such a competitive environment it can only be to the advantage of traders to provide 
good customer care and after-sales services. We have taken the approach to go beyond 
what is legally required in some cases to provide a satisfactory customer experience.  

The  present  legislation  only  succeeds  in  pushing  up  costs  for  the  online  retailer. 
Consumers  that  are  fairly  treated  if  there  is  a  problem  after  purchase  will  of  course 
bring  in  more  business  by  word  of  mouth.  However  -  the  2014  amendment  does  not 
cover  ordinary  decent  people  -  it  simply  facilitates  the  "tyre  kickers"  who  have  no  real 
interest in paying for something, but want to try it out for a few weeks at the retailers’ 
expense. 

Good  information  creates  trust,  give  a  good  feeling  when  shopping,  customer  feels 
valued. 

The  provisions  of  the  CRD  are  unsuitable  for  real  estate  brokers  and  the  brokerage 
service  should  be  exempted.  There  are  sufficient  RoW  for  the  acquisition  or  rental  of 
real estate. But this is strictly separate from the service. 

Retailers  are  exempted  with  consumer  rights.  The  overregulation  is  madness,  less  is 
more.  Consumer  rights  have  been  widened  too  much  in  the  last  few  years,  while  the 
small  business  remains  on  the  stretch.  Consumers  can  allow  themselves  almost 
everything and are almost always on the safe side. 

The benefits we identified in completing the survey should not be overestimated - they 
are not significant. 

A further benefit from a trader perspective, identified through the interview programme 
relates to avoiding difficulties with the enforcement authorities. Enforcement authorities 
pointed  out  that  if  traders  take  steps  to  ensure  compliance,  there  are  also  benefits  for 
traders from avoiding fines and, potentially, a court action. 

Whilst  it  was  possible  to  identify  benefits,  it  was  not  possible  to  quantify  these  against 
the baseline.  This was mainly because traders were able to provide qualitative feedback 
about the type of benefits, or the apparent lack of benefits in some instances, but not to 
assess their magnitude. For example, it was anticipated in the 2008 impact assessment 
that there would be significant cost savings from eradicating the fragmented regulatory 
framework  in  respect  of  national  consumer  protection  laws  that  characterised  the 
baseline  situation.  However,  several  traders  interviewed  stated  that  whilst  it  was 
theoretically  beneficial,  they  were  not  able  to  identify  any  specific  cost  savings,  or  an 
increase  in  sales,  specifically  attributable  to  the  transition  through  the  CRD  to  common 
provisions through a maximum harmonisation approach. 

4.3.2.1  Benefits from specific provisions 

When  asked  about  the  specific  provisions  of  the  CRD,  refer  to  Figure  4-5,  over  60%  of 
traders thought that the right to get adequate information about the goods and services 
was  beneficial  to  their  business.    Fewer  respondents  thought  the  harmonised  RoW  for 
distance and off-premises was beneficial (27% of traders responding) and 23% thought 
it was not beneficial to their business, presumably because in their MS, the duration of 
the  RoW  prior  to  the  CRD  was  shorter.    A  high  number  of  respondents  were  unable  to 
say  whether  the  requirement  to  provide  information  about  digital  content  had  been 

121 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

beneficial to their business, but this may reflect the fact that many traders responding to 
the survey sell goods rather than digital content.  

Figure  4-5:  Traders’  views  on  harmonised  EU  consumer  and  marketing  rules 
and benefits (Q 19) 

Q19 To what extent are the following full harmonised rules beneficial 
for your business? (N = 155)

Right to get adequate information about the goods
and services (148)

29%

37%

9%

7%

17%

RoW from a distance of off-premises contract of 14
days  (149)

8%

19%

23%

32%

18%

Right to get information about the functionality and
interoperability of digital content (143)

11%

24%

9%

6%

49%

RoW from a contract for the downloading of digital
content before its performance begins (143)

10%

18%

5%

15%

52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very beneficial

Rather beneficial

Rather not beneficial

Not beneficial at all

No opinion / don't know

4.3.3  Efficiency and competitiveness impacts on traders 

When  traders  were  asked  to  compare  the  costs  and  the  benefits  of  the  CRD,  their 
opinions were quite divided, but a higher number of respondents thought that the costs 
exceeded the benefits, see Figure 4-6.   

122 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 4-6: Traders’ views on benefits and costs (Q23) 

Q23 do the benefits to your company from consumer related 
legislation exceed the costs of its requirements?  (N = 153)

Yes, the benefits outweight the costs by a significant
amount

7%

Yes, the benefits outweight the costs but only
moderately

16%

No, benefits and costs are similar in magnitude

No, the costs are slightly larger than the benefits

10%

11%

No, the costs far exceed the benefits

24%

No opinion

Don’t know

16%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Considering the detailed responses provided, one trader respondent noted that they had 
no  way  of  analysing  the  relationship  between  costs  and  benefits  in  terms  of  causality.  
Other examples of responses to Q23 are given below. 

Free  text  from  Traders  survey  Q  23:  In  your  view,  do  the  benefits  to  your 
company  from  consumer  related 
its 
requirements? 

legislation  exceed  the  costs  of 

We have no way of analysing the causality between  the costs and benefits other than 
with regards to the right of withdrawal.    

As per comments above! Put it in simple terms with an example - Say we sell an item 
for a total retail price of £1,700 within the UK. Shipping (by Royal Mail, with insurance 
cover)  will  cost  us  £29.60.  Card  processing  will  cost  £62.02.  The  customer  was  not 
sincere, and just curious to have a look at the product, and then they can send it back 
by cheapest means after two weeks (so they could return it uninsured by second class 
mail  at  a  cost  of  £9.00  only,  knowing  that  if  it  gets  lost,  they  will  get  their  card 
company to issue a chargeback against us - no lose situation for them!) And so, we are 
down £91.62 and then have to check that the product is fit for resale (and will usually 
have to sell the product at a huge discount because it has been previously handled). 

The  provisions  of  the  consumer  rights  directive  lead  to  considerable  distrust  of  the 
customers,  who  thereby  very  often  do  without  the  brokerage  service  completely. 
Significant decreases were recorded. 

Chinese  dealers  do  not  keep  too  many  of  the  rights  and  sell  cheaper  and  without 
control etc. but to consumers it does not matter, because for 80% of transactions, the 
purchase price is the deciding factor and not the consumer rights. 

Permanent  over-regulation  leads  to  additional  costs  and  too  information-intensive  / 
unclear  contracts  for  consumers,  which  are  then  unreservedly  accepted,  since  the 
consumer has been overloaded with information. 

Trade associations were also asked about the impacts of the CRD on the competitiveness 
of traders.  The following figure shows their responses.  The views of trade associations 

123 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

were  quite  divided.  Only  13%  of  trade  associations  thought  that  the  impacts  had  been 
either  positive  or  very  positive  when  trading  domestically,  although  their  views  were 
more  positive  when  trading  cross-border  (30%  noting  that  the  impacts  had  been 
positive).    26%  and  21%  of  trade  associations  thought  that  the  impacts  on  traders’ 
competitiveness had been negative and/or very negative when trading domestically and 
cross-border respectively.  

Figure  4-7:  Traders  associations’  views  on  impacts  of  the  CRD  on  traders’ 
competitiveness (Q 14) 

Q14 To what extent has the CRD had an impact on the 
competitiveness of traders in your country? (N = 23)

When trading domestically (23)

1

2

10

6

3

1

When trading in other EU country (23)

7

6

4

1

2

2

1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very positive impact

Positive impact

Neutral/no impact

Negative impact

Very negative impact Don’t know

Not applicable

No opinion

Among  those  provisions  having  the  largest  impacts  on  traders’  competitiveness,  pre-
contractual information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts under Art. 
6(1)  appears  to  be  the  requirement  with  the  greatest  negative  impacts  on 
competitiveness both on domestic and cross-border trade.  This emphasises the need for 
simplification, as discussed earlier in Section 4.3.1.1. 

Nevertheless,  some  provisions  appear  to  have  had  more  positive  impacts  on 
competitiveness according to trade associations (see Figure 4-8 and 4-9).  In particular, 
the following provisions of the CRD:  reimbursement, inertia selling and exceptions from 
the RoW in both domestic and cross-border trade – were viewed as having strengthened 
traders’  competitiveness.  Through  the  interviews,  it  was  suggested  that  the  main 
benefits in this regard relate to increased regulatory certainty. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  4-8:  Traders  associations:    impacts  on  traders’  competitiveness  when 
trading domestically (Q 15) 

Q15 How do you rate the following provisions introduced by the CRD for the 
competitiveness of traders in your country when trading domestically (N = 
19)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (18)
Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (18)
Digital content (18)
Formal requirements (18)
RoW  (18)
Exceptions from RoW (18)
RoW digital content (17)
Reimbursement (17)
Delivery & passing of risk (18)
Basic rate telephone (19)
Surcharges for means of payment (18)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (18)
Inertia selling (18)
Other (1)

1

1

2

2

1
1

3

3

5

2

4
4

4

4

6

7

7
3

5

4

4

5

5

6

7

6
10

3

5

1

1

2
4

1

1

4
3
3
3

2
2
2
2

2
2

2
2

2

1

1
1

1

2

6

4

1

6

5

5

9
4

4

7

8

1

7

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Very negative

Don’t know

No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure  4-9:  Traders  associations  impacts  on  traders’  competitiveness  when 
trading cross-border (Q 15) 

Q15 How do you rate the following provisions introduced by the CRD for 
the competitiveness of traders in your country when trading cross-border 
(N = 18)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (18)
Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (18)
Digital content (18)
Formal requirements (18)
RoW  (18)
Exceptions from RoW (18)
RoW digital content (17)
Reimbursement (17)
Delivery & passing of risk (18)
Basic rate telephone (18)
Surcharges for means of payment (18)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (18)
Inertia selling (18)
Other (1)

3

5

1

1

1
1

2

4

5

4

4

6

7

6
3

4

3

4

3

2

3

6

3

4

6

9

9

4

3

5

2
4

6

3

1

1

3

7

7

8

5

1

5

7

4

5

3
3
1

1

6

3
1

1

3

2
4

1

1

1
1

1

2
2

2
2

2

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Very negative

Don’t know No opinion

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

125 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

National  authorities  were  also  asked  whether  they  had  received  any  feedback  from 
traders  on  the  costs  in  comparison  with  the  previous  regulatory  regime.    Only  a  few 
responded  to  say  that  they  had  received  feedback  from  traders  and,  mostly,  this  was 
negative  feedback  (refer  to  Figure  4-10).    There  were  however  a  small  number  of 
responses  that  elicited  positive  feedback  in  respect  of  particular  provisions.  Again,  the 
largest  number 
information 
requirements.  

from  pre-contractual 

reported  negative 

feedback 

Figure 4-10: National competent authorities’ feedback from traders on costs (Q 
27)   

Q27 Has there been any specific feedback from traders with regard to 
possible increased/decreased costs in comparison to previous 
national regulatory regime? (N = 31)

CRD in general (28)
Pre-contract: on premises (29)
Pre-contract: off premises (29)
Digital content (29)
Formal requirements (29)
RoW (29)
Exceptions from RoW (29)
RoW digital content (29)
Reimbursement (30)
Delivery & passing of risk (29)
Basic rate telephone (29)
Unjustified surcharges (29)
Ban pre-ticked boxes (29)
Inertia selling (29)
Other (10)

1

11
12
9
12

2

2

4

3

10

9

10

1

1
1

14
9
11
12
12

15
15
5

1

1

4
7
2

5
3

1
2
2

4

3
4
3

2
1

8

5

5

6

5
6
6
5
5
7
4
5

5
6

2

7
8
7

9

7
7
7
8
8
7

9
9

3

7
7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very positive feedback

Positive feedback

No Feedback

Negative feedback

Very negative feedback No impact

Don’t know

4.3.4  Impacts on SMEs 

The  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  of  May  2015  emphasise  the  importance  of  assessing 
the administrative burdens of EU legislation on SMEs.  

SMEs’  responses  to  the  online  survey  as  to  whether  the  requirements  of  the  CRD  had 
had an impact on costs for the business are depicted in Figure 4-11. These do not vary 
significantly  from  the  general  group  of  traders.  Among  those  requirements  noted  to  be 
the  most  costly  are  the  provision  of  pre-contractual  information  for  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts,  on-premises  contracts  and  formal  requirements.  The  EESC’s  report 

126 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

on  the  CRD  however  concluded  that  the  costs  for  SMEs  under  the  CRD  were 
disproportionate to the cost of compliance for big businesses71 (EESC, 2017). 

Figure 4-11: SMEs and impacts on costs from CRD provisions (Q 16)   

For SMEs, (companies with less than 250 employees in Q2), Q16 Have 
the requirements of consumer legislation had an impact upon costs for 
your business? (N = 64)

Pre-contract info: on-premises (58)

14%

41%

24%

9%

10%

Pre-contract info: distance & off premises (55)

16%

51%

20%

5%

7%

Language policy (46)

9%

22%

30%

2%

13%

24%

Digital content (45)

2%

24%

31%

2%

20%

20%

Formal requirements (53)

9%

RoW  (51)

14%

42%

31%

23%

8%

19%

35%

4%

6%

10%

Exceptions from RoW (43)

12%

16%

47%

9%

16%

Delivery & passing of risk (42)

10%

17%

43%

2%

7%

19%

Reimbursement (44)

14%

27%

32%

7%

20%

Basic rate telephone (41)

2%

12%

46%

15%

22%

Surcharges for means of payment (42)

26%

40%

10%

24%

Ban pre-ticked boxes (43)

14%

44%

14%

28%

Inertia selling (41)

5%

7%

37%

20%

32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Greatly increased costs

Increased costs

No impact

Reduced costs

Greatly reduced costs

No opinion

Don’t know

Figure  4-12  shows  the  responses  by  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  (including  the  self-
employed)  as  to  whether  the  benefits  from  the  CRD  exceed  the  costs  of  its 
requirements. The results are  very similar to those in respect  of the  general population 
of  traders.    This  may  be  because  most  traders  responding  to  the  survey  are  SMEs  or 
micro-enterprises.    A  separate  analysis  of  larger  companies  has  also  yielded  similar 
results.  

71   Hearing 14.09.2016. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Whilst  22%  of  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises  expressed  the  view  that  the  benefits 
outweighed the costs by a moderate to a significant amount, less positively,  40% noted 
that the costs were greater than the benefits.  Indeed, SMEs appear to be less aware of 
the  benefits  of  respecting  consumer  rights,  as  shown  by  the  evaluation  study  of  the 
awareness  campaign  conducted  by  the  Commission  from  2014  to  2016.  The  campaign 
included a message on the benefits to traders from respecting consumer rights, aimed at 
SMEs,  where  consumers  that  feel  respected  come  back.  Unfortunately,  none  of  the  24 
SMEs  interviewed  for  the  case  studies  in  the  target  countries  recalled  the  campaign 
visuals.  Thus  the  findings  were  that  the  campaign  had  not  been  particularly  effective 
(Coffey and Deloitte, 2016).  

Figure 4-12: Traders, benefits and costs for SMEs (Q 23)   

Q23 For SMEs (Q2 = <250 employees), Q23 do the benefits to your 
company from consumer related legislation exceed the costs of its 
requirements?  (N = 96)

Yes, the benefits outweight the costs by a
significant amount

6%

Yes, the benefits outweight the costs but only
moderately

No, benefits and costs are similar in magnitude

No, the costs are slightly larger than the benefits

16%

10%

13%

No, the costs far exceed the benefits

27%

No opinion

Don’t know

14%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Through the interviews, feedback on the extent to which SMEs perceived the CRD to be 
administratively  burdensome  was  also  received.  Some  consumer  organisations  pointed 
to  low  levels  of  awareness  about  the  CRD  coming  into  effect,  and  noted  that  many 
traders’  websites  still  provide  information  that  are  non-CRD  compliant  and  have,  inter 
alia, out of date information about delivery and returns periods or incorrect information 
pertaining to the RoW.  

Among SMEs interviewed, there was a perception that the costs of some aspects of CRD 
implementation were high, especially the costs of returns when consumers exercise their 
RoW, which must include credit card costs and shipping. There was a particular concern 
among traders about the total costs of returns for high value items sold online. Working 
with low profit margins in online retail puts micro and small firms at greater financial risk 
resulting  from  consumers  exercising  their  RoW  and  stemming  from  the  return  of  used 
goods, as it was discussed above. Thus, the main costs from an SME perspective are less 
to  do  with  updating  information  and  policies  on  their  websites,  which  requires 
familiarisation  time,  but  the  administrative  burdens  that  stem  from  the  costs  that  arise 
from changes to the rules in respect of returns.   

One possibility raised at the  European Consumer Summit to avoid burdening SMEs and 
to  make  CRD  implementation  more  cost-effective  was  the  possibility  of  combining  all 
consumer  and  marketing  law  (including  the  CRD)  into  a  single  piece  of  coherent 

128 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

legislation  through  the  adoption  of  a  Framework  Directive  in  the  form  of  a  European 
Consumer  Code.  This  could  be  used  as  an  opportunity  to  simplify  the  full  body  of 
applicable  legislation  and  to  ensure  adherence  to  the  relevant  pre-contractual 
information requirements, as well as to post- contractual obligations. 

EESC’s  report  on  the  evaluation  of  the  CRD  –  Impacts  on  SMEs  and  the  need 
for simplification 

In  addition,  pre-contractual  information  requirements,  formal  requirements  for 
distance  contracts  and  rules  concerning  the  right  of  withdrawal  could  be  too 
burdensome  for  SMEs72.  One  solution  is  that  information  to  consumers  (Art  5)  would 
not  be  completely  indicated  on  the  product;  instead  a  reference  to  the  website  with 
further information could be indicated. 

Other Articles, such as delivery (Art. 18) and the passing of risk (Art. 20) do not appear 
to have led to extra administrative costs, since many EU MS had similar rules previously, 
and the new rules add clarity and regulatory certainty rather than require major changes 
to procedures. 

4.3.5  Impacts on sectors 

An  analysis  of  the  impacts  on  different  sectors  has  also  been  undertaken  by  type  of 
contract,  i.e.  for  goods,  services  and  digital  content  separately.    Table  4-1  shows  that 
traders selling goods appear to be more convinced of the benefits from the Directive. For 
traders  selling  digital  content  the  benefits  appear  to  be  limited.  The  results  should  be 
read with caution however due to the low level of responses.  

Table 4-1: Benefits and costs from CRD by type of contract 

Contract 

Benefits 
>> costs 

Benefits 
> costs 

Benefits 
= costs 

Costs > 
benefits 

Goods 

Services 

Digital 
Free 
online 
Blank 

ALL 

7 

4 

1 

11 

19 

6 

2 

25 

10 

5 

2 

15 

Costs 
>> 
benefits 

No 
opinio
n 

18 

16 

3 

2 

9 

17 

8 

2 

2 

5 

Don’
t 
kno
w 
14 

4 

2 

1 

5 

9 

7 

2 

2 

17 

37 

25 

23 

Regarding sectoral impacts, the CRD has affected online retailers more than other types 
of  contracts  covered  through  the  Directive,  since  some  of  the  new  provisions  are 
explicitly  aimed  at  online  purchases.  Examples  are  banning  pre-ticked  boxes,  ensuring 
the means of payment are displayed from the outset of the transaction and ensuring that 
there  is  a  clearly  displayed  obligation  to  pay  and  information  provided  on  the  website 
about  the  characteristics  of  the  product.  Since  digital  content  is  an  area  newly  covered 
by the Directive and not addressed in predecessor legislation, it is expected that sectors 
providing digital content are affected more by the Directive than other sectors (some of 

72   Questionnaire Q 5.1.1. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

which  stated  that  they  did  not  see  that  many  major  changes  compared  with  earlier 
legislation). 

Looking at the different levels of compliance could also be a useful indicator of the scale 
of costs  or difficulties encountered by traders in complying with the CRD requirements. 
In this regard, the findings of the Consumer Sweep conducted in 2015 showed a similar 
pattern  of  irregularities  across  different  sectors,  multi-purpose  or  specialised  retailers 
and  type  of  contract  (good,  service,  digital  content).  Overall,  among  the  websites  of 
specialised  retailers  with  confirmed  irregularities,  29%  were  websites  selling  clothes, 
shoes  and  fashion  accessories;  15%  electronic  goods  and  household  appliances;  and 
12%  furnishing  and  home  decoration.  Earlier  discussion  on  enforcement  showed  that 
court cases have arisen in respect of the energy sector and telecommunications.  

Through  the  interviews,  some  feedback  in  relation  to  the  CRD  at  sectoral  level  was 
identified.  For  instance,  feedback  was  obtained  from  distance  selling  organisations  that 
the  CRD  can  be  burdensome  for  sectors  that  rely  on  direct  selling  techniques,  such  as 
telemarketing. A concern among smaller firms using this sales channel is that some MS 
have opted to implement regulatory choices and this was seen as causing administrative 
burdens since traders have to ascertain MS specific rules for some Articles.  

As noted earlier, sectors will be affected differently by the RoW, thus the impacts of CRD 
in terms of costs and benefits will also vary sector by sector. An example was provided 
earlier in this section with regard to sectors that are known for the high rate of returns 
by  consumers,  such  as  the  online  fashion  sector  and  the  heating  oil  distributors. 
Conversely, there are other sectors that have much lower rates of returns and would be 
affected less by the RoW. 

  Impacts on national competent authorities  

4.4.1.1  Costs of transposition 

National  competent  authorities  were  also  asked  about  the  costs  of  transposition.  The 
costs  of  transposition  include  for  instance,  the  cost  of  consulting  stakeholders  and 
reporting requirements to the Commission.  These are different from costs related to the 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  provisions;  or,  in  order  words,  the  costs  of 
monitoring and inspections.  

Regarding  the  transposition  costs,  most  of  the  competent  authorities  agreed  that  there 
were no costs from transposing the Directive into national legislation (see Figure 4-13). 
Only a few noticed that the costs were moderate or significant.  Comments provided by 
national  competent  authorities  indicated  that  the  costs  of  transposing  the  CRD  were 
similar to the costs of transposing other directives and no additional budget was needed. 
There were some limited costs associated with the human resources needed to transpose 
the  Directive  either  through  amendments  to  existing  legislation  and/or  a  national 
consumer code and in some MS, through the adoption of new legislation. In this regard, 
in order to determine how the CRD should be transposed, some countries also organised 
stakeholder  discussions  at  national  level.  Open  comments  received  are  provided  in  the 
box overleaf. 

130 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 4-13: National competent authorities’ costs from the transposition of the 
CRD (Q 6)  

Q6 Please indicate your view of the costs to your national administration 
from the transposition of the CRD. (N = 17)

1

2

7

6

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Significant costs

Moderate costs

No costs

Don’t know

No opinion

Free text from National Competent Authority survey Q 6: Please indicate your 
view as to the level of costs to your national administration from the 
transposition of the CRD. E.g. costs of consulting stakeholders and costs of 
reporting requirements to the Commission 

The overall costs for our national administration related to the transposition of the CRD 
were  more  or  less  the  same  as  the  costs  relating  to  the  transposition  of  other  similar 
directives.  

The  costs  of  the  transposition  of  the  CRD  were  covered  from  the  regular  (operational) 
budget of the competent authorities. No extra budget was needed. 

The enforcement of the CRD is only partially carried out by our competent authority. The 
exact costs cannot be estimated. 

4.4.1.2  Costs from implementation and enforcement 

As  for  the  costs  relating  to  CRD  implementation  and  enforcement,  these  costs  are 
reportedly higher than those from transposition.  

The  former  group,  implementation  costs,  include  the  costs  of  information/awareness 
activities.    Information  activities  included  rewriting  text  or  creating  new  text  for 
websites,  launching  campaigns,  and  running  consumer  helplines.    In  addition,  human 
resources  from  national  enforcement  authorities  were  made  available  to  help  carry  out 
the  Consumer  Sweep  led  by  the  Commission’s  DG  JUST  to  check  websites  at  national 
level.  

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  4-14:  National  competent  authorities’  costs  from  implementation  and 
enforcement of the CRD (Q 13) 

Q13 Please indicate your view of costs involved in the implementation and 
enforcement of the CRD (N = 37)

5

11

2

13

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Significant costs

Moderate costs

No costs

Don’t know

No opinion

Costs from conducting sweeps in Ireland 

A  stakeholder  interviewed  from  an  enforcement  authority  in  Ireland  stated  that  even 
though  less  than  30  websites  had  been  checked,  both  the  initial  website  screening  to 
check  for  non-compliance  and  follow-up  through  pre-enforcement  actions  by  writing  to 
the  traders  concerned  had  been  very  time-intensive.  Although  court  action  had  only 
been  required  in  one  instance,  checking  that  these  traders  had  taken  the  necessary 
steps to become compliant took up considerable resources, with a small team of several 
people working on the consumer sweep. 

30%  of  national  competent  authorities  stated  that  although  there  had  been  increased 
costs in relation to the implementation of the CRD, they had only been moderate or not 
as significant as expected.   

Free text from National Competent Authority survey Q 13: Please indicate your 
view as to the level of costs involved in the implementation and enforcement of 
the CRD 

As the number of e-traders in Estonia is increasing, we consider that the implementation 
of CRD is not as costly as it could be expected. For the enforcement authority it involves 
some additional costs in order to be able to monitor the whole market. 

Many employees were involved in implementing the new rules in our organization.   
Because of the wide scope of the rules we had to write and rewrite many texts on our 
websites and in our knowledge database. Also there are costs involved in awareness-
raising campaigns we launched and in enforcement actions.     

A significant amount of staff resources (c.40-50%) in our consumer enforcement division 
is spent on the assessment of CRD issues raised by consumers. Enforcement action in 
the area also requires the support of our legal services division. In addition, the number 
of consumers contact our outsourced helpline on CRD issues is significant. 

  Summary of findings on efficiency 

The above sub-sections have presented the findings of the consultation on the costs and 
benefits  from  the  CRD  and  its  different  provisions.  It  has  not  been  possible  to  quantify 
the  benefits  and  costs  of  the  CRD  in  monetary  terms  despite  asking  stakeholders  for 
specific estimates. There are mixed views as to the costs and benefits from the directive. 
Although  consumers  and  their  representatives  agreed  that  consumers’  confidence  and 
trust have increased, according to traders, this has not happened without expense.  

132 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

From the online survey, 24% of the traders agree that the costs far exceed the benefits 
versus  16%  that  think  that  the  benefits  exceed  the  costs  but  only  moderately.  The 
largest  costs  relate  to  a  few  provisions,  namely  the  pre-contractual  information 
requirements and those on the RoW: 

•  Stakeholders  felt  that  the  pre-contractual  information  requirements  were  imposing 
an  unnecessary  burden  on  traders.  Moreover,  there  is  evidence  of  duplication  in 
information  requirements  between  the  CRD  and  the  UPCD  (as  will  be  discussed  in 
Section 5 on coherence) which may create unneeded administrative costs on traders. 
In  addition,  some  stakeholders  believed  that  the  amount  of  information  can  be 
overwhelming for consumers; and  

•  The  potential  for  increased  volume  of  returns  due  to  a  longer  RoW  and  the impacts 
on traders from the return of used products. In addition, the lack of exceptions from 
the  RoW  seems  to  have  affected  some  sectors  in  particular,  such  as  the  heating  oil 
and the online bidding platforms. However, other sectors viewed the exceptions from 
the  RoW  as  positive  in  enhancing  the  impacts  of  the  Directive  on  their 
competitiveness, such as the hotel sector.   

Other  costs  were  mentioned  from  formal  requirements  but  no  specific  amounts  were 
given.  Among the benefits reported by traders of complying with the Directive are those 
from  having  harmonised  rules  thus  setting  a  more  even  playing  field  across  traders 
selling  cross-border.  Other  benefits  reported  are  that  trusting  consumers  attract  other 
consumers and that such consumers also tend to return (although these benefits appear 
to  be  less  visible  to  SMEs,  according  to  the  evaluation  of  the  awareness  campaign). 
Although,  in  general  terms,  online  sales  have  increased  in  the  last  few  years,  the  link 
with  consumer  protection  legislation  was  not  that  clear  to  all  stakeholders.  In  traders’ 
opinion, however, the benefits from the CRD do not outweigh the costs. 

The  effects  for  SMEs  are  reportedly  similar  to  the  effects  for  larger  companies  and  for 
trader respondents overall.  Redesigning websites is said to be especially costly for micro 
and  small  firms.  Further  challenges  include  the  point  that  working  with  low  profit 
margins in online retail puts micro and small firms at greater financial risk resulting from 
consumers  exercising  their  RoW  (Art.  11).  At  the  European  Consumer  Summit  held  in 
October 2016, the possibility of having a single European Consumer Code containing all 
consumer  legislation  was  raised  by  stakeholders.  This  goes  in  the  direction  of  reducing 
rather than increasing the number of individual pieces of legislation applicable and may 
benefit SMEs in particular.  

Most  competent  authorities  reported  moderate  administrative  costs  to  transpose  the 
Directive but have experienced higher costs associated with raising awareness about the 
new  requirements  in  the  CRD,  and  in  relation  to  enforcement  activities  (checking 
compliance  of  traders’  websites,  writing  pre-enforcement  letters  and  checking  traders’ 
compliance  after  having  received  these,  drawing  attention  to  areas  of  non-compliance, 
taking  court  action  in  strategic  deterrent  cases).  It  should  be  noted  that  although  they 
could not be quantified, the extent  of  costs and benefits  were found to  vary depending 
on the MS concerned, and the predecessor legal framework.  

Generally,  positive  impacts  are  reported  on  consumers  by  most  consumers  and  their 
associations answering the survey. 47% of the national competent authorities confirmed 
that  they  have  received  positive  feedback  on  the  benefits  from  the  CRD  in  general.  
Again, most of the benefits stem from the harmonised 14 days RoW for distance and off-
premises  contracts.   Unfortunately,  most national competent authorities replying to the 
questionnaire could not provide data on the uptake by consumers of the exercise of their 
rights under the CRD. 

133 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In summary, although it has not been possible to quantify the benefits and costs of the 
CRD  in  monetary  terms,  there  are  mixed  views  as  to  the  costs  and  benefits  from  the 
directive. Although positive impacts are reported on consumers, the impacts on traders 
vary  from  positive  to  negative  according  to  the  specific  provisions.      One  of  the  main 
issues  raised  by  interviewees  relates  to  the  pre-contractual  information  requirements 
and  the  need  for  simplification.  Another  outstanding  issue  relates  to  the  volume  and 
return  of  used  products  and  the  financial  risk  to  companies  from  having  to  provide  full 
refunds, unable to account for diminished value.  

Table 4-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its efficiency 

Key to rating: 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

What are the costs and 
benefits (monetary and non-
monetary) associated with 
the application of Directive 
2011/83/EU in the Member 
States? 

What are the 
increased/reduced costs for 
businesses, such as 
administrative and 
compliance costs or costs for 
handling complaints and 
returns, legal advice, etc.; 

What are the 
compliance/administrative 
costs of public authorities? 

What are the effects on SMEs 
and additional costs for 
companies that operate in 
only one Member State? 

What are the burden and 
benefits for businesses 
arising from obligations on 
traders under the Directive at 
different stages of the 
transaction (i.e. pre-
contractual stage, stage of 
conclusion of the contract 
and post-contractual stage), 
in particular, regarding their 

-/+:  Positive  impacts  for  consumers  from  specific 
provisions  (e.g.  common  14  day  RoW  across  the  EU, 
common rules on delivery, passing of risk).  

provisions 

Negative  impacts  are  reported  for  traders  from  some 
specific 
information 
requirements,  increased  volume  of  returns  due  to  a 
longer  RoW)  but  also  positive  impacts,  such  as  greater 
regulatory  certainty  (e.g.  delivery,  passing  of  risk).  
Impacts could not be quantified. 

(pre-contractual 

--/+: negative impacts on costs reported from provisions 
such  as  the  increase  in  pre-contractual  information 
requirements,  the  requirement  to  make  information 
available  upfront  in  the  transaction  process  and  the 
in  doing  so  on  m-commerce 
practical  difficulties 
websites.  However,  traders  are  more  positive  that 
various  exceptions  from  the  RoW  have  been  included  in 
Art.  16  and  the  exceptions  have  been  made  clearer 
compared with previous legislation. 

--/0:  most  competent  authorities  reported  moderate 
administrative  costs  to  transpose  the  Directive  but  the 
costs  of  monitoring  and  enforcement  are  reported  to  be 
higher. 

--/-:  effects  for  SMEs  reportedly  similar  to  those  of  the 
overall survey and larger companies. Views were divided 
among respondents.  

--/+: the Article resulting in the highest costs is reported 
to  be  the  provision  of  pre-contractual  information 
requirements  but  no  estimates  of  costs  could  be 
provided by consultees. Having harmonised rules on the 
provision  of  information  on  goods,  services  and  digital 
content  has  been  reported  to  be  rather  beneficial.  Most 
traders  did  not  report  an  increase  in  sales  over  the  last 
two years. 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 4-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its efficiency 

Key to rating: 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

administrative costs and 
removal of barriers to cross-
border trade?  

Which market sectors are 
affected by the provisions of 
the Directive? The 
assessment should identify 
which sectors have adapted 
more efficiently to the new 
requirements and which are 
characterised by more 
frequent breaches of the 
Directive's provisions. 

What are the specific 
challenges to SMEs, in 
particular micro enterprises, 
with respect to the 
implementation of the 
Directive? What good 
practices in terms of their 
cost-effective application can 
be identified? 

What, if any, specific 
provisions in the Directive 
can be identified that make 
cost-effective implementation 
more difficult and hamper the 
maximisation of the benefits? 
In particular, what is the 
(unnecessary/cumulative) 
regulatory burden identified? 

Were the outputs and effects 
achieved at a reasonable 
cost? Could the same results 
have been achieved with 
lower costs or in a simpler 
way? Could the use of other 
policy instruments or 
mechanisms have provided 
better cost-effectiveness? 

-/+: All market sectors are affected by the CRD, with the 
exception of those sectors specified in Art. 3(3) as being 
outside its scope, and the specific circumstances in which 
exceptions  can  be  granted  in  Art.  16  (Exceptions  from 
the  RoW).    The  research  has  identified  some  sectors 
have been the subject of more frequent breaches of the 
Directive's  provisions,  such  as  the  energy  sector  and 
telecommunications  but  other  sectors  are  being 
particularly  affected  by  certain  provisions,  such  as  the 
textile sector, due to the return of used products.  

for  SMEs 

-/+;  Among  the  specific  challenges 
in 
implementing  the  Directive  is  the  difficulty  in  meeting 
the costs of further customising a website to ensure that 
it  is  CRD-compliant.  Redesigning  websites  can  be 
especially  costly  for  micro  and  small  firms.  Larger  firms 
are better able to spread the costs of compliance across 
their  activities  and  sales  channels.  Further  challenges 
include  how  working  with  low  profit  margins  in  online 
retail puts micro and small firms at greater financial risk 
resulting from consumers exercising their RoW (Art. 11).  

Some  good  practice  was  identified  in  terms  of  cost-
effective  application  where  trader  associations  were 
providing their members with standard forms to send out 
to suppliers. 

-/+:  In  terms  of  unnecessary  regulatory  burdens,  the 
main  burden  identified  relates  to  the  duplication  of 
information  requirements. 
is  evidence  of 
duplication in information requirements between the CRD 
and the UPCD and the CRD (more  on this in the section 
on coherence).  

  There 

+/+++:  The  transposition  of  the  CRD  was  achieved  at 
reasonable  cost  for  national  competent  authorities.  
Many  national  authorities  said  that  there  had  been 
negligible costs, although the costs of implementing and 
enforcing the CRD were higher.  

The  costs  from  provisions  such  as  pre-contractual 
information requirements are considered to be significant 
for  traders  and  more  burdensome  for  SMEs.  One 

135 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 4-2:  Summary of findings on CRD and its efficiency 

Key to rating: 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

What possibilities are there 
for simplification? 

possibility  raised  at  the  European  Consumer  Summit  to 
avoid burdening SMEs and to make CRD implementation 
more  cost-effective  was  the  possibility  of  combining  all 
consumer  and  marketing  law,  including  the  CRD  into  a 
single piece of coherent legislation through the adoption 
of  a  Framework  Directive  in  the  form  of  a  European 
Consumer  Code.    Other  suggestions  for  simplifications 
include  the  provision  of  linkages  or  references  to 
websites  where  all  pre-contractual  information  can  be 
accessed.  

136 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

5  The CRD and its coherence with other EU consumer law  

  Overview of Section 

This  section  deals  with  coherence.    Coherence  relates  to  what  extent  the  different 
Articles  and  sub-Articles  within  the  legal  text  of  the  CRD  are  consistent  and  relate  to 
other  "external"  interventions,  including  other  related  horizontal  Directives  as  well  as 
sector  specific  legislation.  The  former  group  includes  the  Services,  e-Commerce,  and 
Payment  Services  Directives,  as  well  as  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive 
(UCPD) and the Directive on Consumer Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR). The latter 
group  includes,  for  instance,  electronic  communications  and  passenger  transport 
services-related legislations.  The list of Directives to be observed under this study was 
agreed at the start of the project.  

The evaluation questions are replicated below. 

•  To what extent is the intervention coherent internally? 

•  To  what  extent  is  this  intervention  coherent  with  other  interventions  which  have 

similar objectives? 

•  To what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy? 

•  To what extent is the intervention coherent with measures and actions to strengthen 

consumer protections at national level in relevant areas and markets? 

The online survey and interviews asked national competent authorities whether they had 
had problems with transposition and interpretation of the different articles vis-à-vis other 
Directives  as  well  as  the  extent  to  which  the  CRD  had  proved  to  be  complementary  to 
existing measures and actions to strengthen consumer protection 

A  few  papers  under  the  OPC  provided  opinions  on  consumer  law  in  general,  including 
aspects of coherence related to  how several requirements (e.g. information obligations) 
were covered by more than one directive.   

  Coherence between the CRD and other horizontal directives 

Article  6(8)  of  the  CRD  states  that  the  information  requirements  of  the  CRD  are  in 
addition  to  information  requirements  contained  in  Directive  2006/123/EC,  the  Service 
Directive,  and  Directive  2000/31/EC,  the  e-commerce  Directive,  and  does  not  prevent 
MS  from  imposing  additional  information  requirements  in  accordance  with  those 
Directives.  However, if a provision of Directive 2006/123/EC or Directive 2000/31/EC on 
the  content  and  the  manner  in  which  the  information  is  to  be  provided  conflicts  with  a 
provision of the CRD, the provision of the CRD shall prevail.  

Traders responding to the OPC emphasised the need to simplify the information provided 
to  consumers  and  consolidate  the  information  requirements  with  similar  or  overlapping 
provisions  in  other  Directives.  They  highlighted  how  some  aspects  of  consumer 
protection  (e.g.  price  indication  provisions)  are  covered  by  several  directives  including 
the  CRD.    Several  respondents  to  the  online  survey  agreed  that  the  marketing/pre-
contractual  information  requirements  within  the  CRD  and  other  Directives  should  be 
regrouped  and  streamlined.    Some  same  conclusions  were  reached  in  the  Consumer 
Summit  held  in  October  2016.    The  EESC’s  report  on  the  CRD  also  concluded  that  the 
CRD  could  be  improved  by  better  provisions  on  information  by  simplifying  and  aligning 
the  information  requirements  currently  spread  across  the  EU  consumer  and  marketing 
acquis (EESC, 2017). 

137 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Example  comments  on  information  requirement  of  CRD  and  related  horizontal 
Directives  

“Existing  consumer  information  requirements  are  too  burdensome.  [When  it]  comes  to 
the existing consumer information requirements set by several directives, we consider it 
a very important aim to review the interplay and coherence of those obligations.”  

“A  consolidation  exercise  [in  the  area  of  information  requirements]  could  therefore  be 
useful, but without the need for a fully-fledged legislative revision. 

“There  should  be  good  synergies  between  the  different  Directives  to  avoid  any  gaps 
which could be exploited by illegally operating businesses.” 

“It has been suggested to  simplify information requirements, focusing on quality  rather 
than  quantity  of  information  to  be  provided”..as  well  as  “to  improve  coordination  and 
coherence among different pieces of EU legislation…” 

The  different  horizontal  Directives  are  analysed  in  more  detail  below  against  the 
provisions of the CRD. 

5.2.1  Coherence with the Service Directive 

The scope of the CRD also includes service contracts. These are defined as any contract 
other  than  a  sales  contract  under  which  the  trader  supplies  or  undertakes  to  supply  a 
service  to  the  consumer  against  consideration,  with  some  exemptions.  The  Services 
Directive, Directive 2006/123/E, applies to all services which are not explicitly excluded 
from it. The list of exclusions from both Directives is quite similar, and refers to sectors 
covered by specific sectoral legislation.  

The  following  table  sets  out  the  information  requirements  of  the  CRD  vis-à-vis  the 
Services  Directive.    As  it  can  be  seen,  the  CRD  contains  less  information  requirements 
about the trader but more about the rest of key areas, as some, of course, will not apply 
to  the  Services  Directive  (say  information  provisions  on  digital  content  when  it  is 
provided  in  the  form  of  service).    It  needs  to  be  noted  that  the  Services  Directive 
(Directive  2006/123/EC)  was  adopted  10  years  ago,  when  means  to  contact  a  trader 
were  typically  different  (e.g.  fax  and  phone  number,  but  often  no  website  or  contact 
email  address).  Due  to  rapid  developments  in  technology,  providing  information  via  a 
website  and  ensuring  that  a  contact  email  address  is  available  for  consumers  is  now 
considered to be essential. 

Article  22(5)  of  the  Services  Directive  allows  MS  to  impose  additional  information 
requirements  applicable  to  providers  established  in  their  territory.  The  option  of  extra 
information  requirements  under  this  directive  (as  well  as  the  e-Commerce  Directive)  is 
one  of  the  regulatory  choices  available  to  national  legislators  under  Article  6(8)  of  the 
CRD.    As  noted  in  Section  2,  however,  only  four  EU  MS  have  made  use  of  this  option 
(UK, HU, CY and FR). Stakeholders from these countries have not, however, highlighted 
any specific issues with regard to coherence.  

An examination of the  coherence where other  provisions apply to both Directives (ticks 
in two columns) shows that there is no significant incoherence between the two.  

138 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 5-1:  The CRD and the Services Directive – comparison of key provisions 

Key area 

Consumer Rights 
Directive 2011/83/EU 

Services Directive 

2006/123/EC 

I. Information about the trader 

I.1. Name 

✓ Article 5(1)(b) Article 
6(1)(b)73 

I.2. 
contact details 

Address 

and 

✓ Article 5(1)(b) Article 
6(1)(c) Article 6(1)(d) 

✓ Article 22(1)(a): The name of 
the provider, his legal status 
and form 

✓  Article 22(1)(a) Article 27 

I.3.  Trade  or  other 
public 
(if 
applicable) 

register 

I.4. VAT number 

I.5. 
requirements 
regulated professions 

Specific 
for 

I.6. Conflict of interest 

I.7. 
authority 

Supervisory 

II. Conclusion of the contract 

II.  1  Cost  of  using  the 
  distance 
means  of 
communication 

✓ Article 6(1)(f) 

III. Description of the Product 

III.1. Characteristics 

III.2. Functionality 

III.3. Interoperability 

IV. Price 

✓ Article 5(1)(a) and 
Article 6(1)(a) 

✓ Article 5(1)(g) and 
Article 6(1)(r) 

✓ Article 5(1)(h) and 
Article 6(1)(s) 

✓  

Article 22(1)(b) 

✓ Article 22(1)(d) 

✓ Article 22(1)(e) 

✓ At the recipient's REQUEST 
(Article 22(3) (c) 

✓ Article 22(1) (c) 

✓ Article 22 (1)(j) 

✓ Article 5(1)(c) and 
Article 6(1)(e) 

✓ Article 22(1)(i) 

V. Performance of the contract 

V.1. 
payment 

Delivery 

and 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) and 
Article 6(1)(g) 

V.2. Complaint handling 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) and 
Article 6(1)(g) 

V.3. 

Financial 

✓ Article 6(1)(q) 

73   Article 6(1) sets out the information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts whilst Article 5(1) 

sets out these requirements for other (on-premises) contracts 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Key area 

Consumer Rights 
Directive 2011/83/EU 

Services Directive 

2006/123/EC 

guarantees  

V.4. Legal guarantee 

V.5. 
Commercial 
guarantee  and  after-
sale 

✓ Article 5(1)(e) and 
Article 6(1) (l) 

✓ Article 5(1)(e) 6(1)m 

✓ Article 22(1)(h) 

VI. Validity of the contract in time 

VI.1.  Duration 
termination 
of 
contract 

VI.2. 
withdrawal 

Right 

and 
the 

✓ Article 5(1)(f) and 
Article 6(1)(o) (6)(1)(p) 

of 

✓ Article 6(1)(k) Article 
6(1)(h)Article 6(1)(i)Article 
6(1)(j) 

VII. Legal terms 

VII.1. 
conditions 

General 

VII.2.  Applicable 
and jurisdiction 

law 

VII.3. Codes of conduct 

✓ Article 6(1)(n) 

✓ Article 6(1)(t) 

VII.4 
Out-of-court 
complaint  and  redress 
mechanisms 

VIII.5. 
liability insurance 

Professional 

✓ Article 22(1) (f) 

✓ Article 22(1) (g) 

✓ At the recipient's REQUEST 
(Article 22(3)(d)) 

✓ At the recipient's REQUEST 
(Article 22(3)(e)), Article 27(4) 

✓ Article 22(1) (k) 

5.2.2  Coherence with the E-commerce Directive 

The  Electronic Commerce Directive, Directive  2000/31/EC, adopted in 2000, sets up an 
internal  market  framework  for  electronic  commerce.  It  establishes  harmonised  rules  on 
issues  such  as  the  transparency  and  information  requirements  for  online  service 
providers, commercial communications, electronic contracts and limitations of liability of 
intermediary  service  providers.    These  services  include  also  services  provided  free  of 
charge to the recipients and funded, for example, by advertising or sponsorship such as 
price  comparison  sites.    The  following  table  sets  out  the  key  requirements  of  the  CRD 
vis-à-vis the E-commerce Directive.  

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table  5-2:    The  CRD  and  the  E-commerce  Directive  –  comparison  of  key 
provisions 

Key area 

Consumer Rights 
Directive 2011/83/EU 

E-commerce Directive 

2000/31/EC 

I. Information about the trader 

I.1. Name 

✓  Article  5(1)(b)  Article 
6(1)(b)74 

✓ Article 5(1)(a) 

I.2. 
contact details 

Address 

and 

✓  Article  5(1)(b)  Article 
6(1)(c) Article 6(1)(d) 

✓ Article 5(1)(b)-(c) 

I.3.  Trade  or  other 
public 
(if 
applicable) 

register 

I.4. VAT number 

I.5. 
requirements 
regulated professions 

Specific 
for 

I.7. 
authority 

Supervisory 

II. Conclusion of the contract 

II.  1  Cost  of  using  the 
means  of 
  distance 
communication 

II. 2 Technical steps 

III. Description of the Product 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) 

✓ Article 5(1)(g) 

✓ Article 5(1)(f) 

✓ Article 5(1)(e) 

✓ Article 6(1)(f) 

✓ 

Article 10(1), Article 11(1) 

III.1. Characteristics 

III.2. Functionality 

III.3. Interoperability 

III.4 Promotional offers 

IV. Price 

✓ Article 5(1)(a) and 
Article 6(1)(a) 

✓ Article 5(1)(g) and 
Article 6(1)(r) 

✓ Article 5(1)(h) and 
Article 6(1)(s) 

✓ Article 6 

✓  Article  5(1)(c)  and 
Article 6(1)(e) 

✓ Article 5(2) 

V. Performance of the contract 

V.1. 
payment 

Delivery 

and 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) and 
Article 6(1)(g) 

V.2. Complaint handling 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) and 

74   Article 6(1) sets out the information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts whilst Article 5(1) 

sets out these requirements for other (on-premises) contracts 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Key area 

Consumer Rights 
Directive 2011/83/EU 

E-commerce Directive 

2000/31/EC 

Article 6(1)(g) 

Financial 

✓ Article 6(1)(q) 

V.3. 
guarantees  

V.4. Legal guarantee 

V.5. 
Commercial 
guarantee  and  after-
sale 

✓ Article 5(1)(e) and 
Article 6(1) (l) 

✓ Article 5(1)(e)  6(1)m 

VI. Validity of the contract in time 

VI.1.  Duration 
termination 
of 
contract 

VI.2. 
withdrawal 

Right 

and 
the 

✓ Article 5(1)(f) and 
Article 6(1)(o) (6)(1)(p) 

of 

✓ Article 6(1)(k) Article 
6(1)(h)Article 6(1)(i)Article 
6(1)(j) 

VII. Legal terms 

VII.1. 
conditions 

General 

✓ Article 10(3) 

VII.3. Codes of conduct 

✓ Article 6(1)(n) 

✓ Article 10(2) 

VII.4 
Out-of-court 
complaint  and  redress 
mechanisms 

✓ Article 6(1)(t) 

While  the  CRD  and  e-Commerce  Directive  both  contain  measures  on  concluding  the 
contract, the CRD provisions75 relate to matters such as: 

•  The pre-contractual requirement to provide clear and comprehensible information on 
the cost of distance communication (where higher than basic rate) for the conclusion 
of the contract (Article 6(1)(f)); and 

•  The formal requirements for the conclusion of distance contracts (Article 8), including 
inter  alia  the  obligation  to  provide  the  consumer  with  confirmation  of  the  contract 
concluded, on a durable medium76 and within a reasonable time after the conclusion 
of  the  distance  contract  (at  the  latest  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  goods  or 
before the performance of the service begins) (Article 8(7)). 

75   Article 6(1)(f) CRD. 
76   Art  10(2)  of  the  CRD  defines  “durable  medium”  as  any  instrument  which  enables  the  consumer  or  the 
trader to store information addressed personally to him in a way accessible for future reference for a period 
of time adequate for the purposes of the information and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the 
information stored. 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

By  contrast,  the  e-Commerce  Directive  covers  matters  such  as  the  different  technical 
steps to be followed in order to conclude the contract; whether the contract will be filed 
by  the  service  provider  and  whether  it  will  be  accessible;  the  technical  means  for 
identifying  and  correcting  input  errors  prior  to  the  placing  of  the  order;  and  the 
languages  offered77.  As  a  consequence,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  issues  with 
coherence between the two directives in relation to the conclusion of the contract.  

5.2.3  Coherence with the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 

The Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD) was adopted in 2005 and is a full 
harmonisation  directive  banning  the  exercise  of  certain  misleading  or  aggressive 
practices that may cause consumers to take transactional decisions they would not have 
taken otherwise. It applies to virtually all business-to-consumer (‘B2C’) transactions and 
in all sectors.  

Article  6(1)(b)  of  the  UCPD  sets  out  a  requirement  in  relation  to  the  content  of  the 
information  that  traders  must  provide,  in  the  form  of  a  prohibition  against  incorrect  or 
otherwise  misleading  information  about  the  main  characteristics  of  a  product,  if  this  is 
likely  to  cause  the  average  consumer  to  take  a  transactional  decision  he  would  not 
otherwise  have  taken.  Information  requirements  about  the  main  characteristics  of  a 
product  are  additionally  referred  to  in  Article  7(4)(a)  of  the  UCPD  in  the  context  of  an 
‘invitation to purchase’.   The Commission’s guidance on the UCPD notes that compliance 
with  the  more  onerous  provisions  of  the  CRD  should  normally  also  ensure  compliance 
with Article 7 of the UCPD:  

‘Given the more exhaustive character of the information requirements in the CRD, 
complying,  already  at  the  stage  of  invitation  to  purchase,  with  the  requirements 
laid  down  by  the  CRD  for  the  pre-contractual  stage  should  normally  also  ensure 
compliance  with  Article  7(4)  UCPD,  as  far  as  the  content  of  the  information  is 
concerned.’   

Thus, it would appear that there are no issues with coherence between the CRD and the 
UCPD concerning the descriptions of the product. Table 5-3 sets out the requirements of 
both  Directives  vis-à-vis.  This  would  suggest  that  issues  with  coherence  should  remain 
minimal.  However,  a  stakeholder  responding  to  the  OPC  raised  concerns  about 
overlapping  rules  and  different  definitions  in  the  CRD  and  UCPD  (as  well  as  the  Price 
Indication  Directive)  resulting  in  practical  difficulties  when  determining  which  law  is 
applicable  and  stressing  the  claim  for  simplification  of  similar  information  requirements 
under both Directives.   

Coherence between the CRD and UCPD on definitions 

‘Use of different terms such as ‘final price’, ‘selling price’ and ‘total  price’ can ultimately 
make interpretation difficult. In turn, this can lead to legal uncertainty until clarification 
is provided by the ECJ’. 

77   Articles 10(1) and 11(1) e-Commerce Directive. 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 5-3:   The CRD and the UCPD – comparison of key provisions 

Key area 

Consumer Rights 
Directive 2011/83/EU 

Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive 2005/29/EC 

I. 

Information about the trader 

I.1. Name 

✓ Article 5(1)(b) Article 
6(1)(b)78 

I.2. 
contact details 

Address 

and 

✓ Article 5(1)(b) Article 
6(1)(c) Article 6(1)(d) 

III. Description of the product 

✓ Article 7(4)b 

✓ Article 7(4)b 

III.1. Characteristics 

✓ Article 5(1)(a) and 
Article 6(1)(a) 

✓ Article 2(i) Article 6(1) (b) 

and Article 7 (4)(a)   

III.2. Functionality 

III.3. Interoperability 

✓ Article 5(1)(g) and 
Article 6(1)(r) 

✓ Article 5(1)(h) and 
Article 6(1)(s) 

III.4 Promotional offers 

IV. Price 

✓ Article 5(1)(c) and 
Article 6(1)(e) 

✓  Article 5(2), 6(1)(d), 7(4)(c) 

V. Performance of the contract 

V.1. 
payment 

Delivery 

and 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) and 
Article 6(1)(g) 

✓  Article 6(1)(b) and 7(4)(d) 

V.2. Complaint handling 

✓ Article 5(1)(d) and 
Article 6(1)(g) 

✓  Article 6(1)(b) and 7(4)(d) 

V.3. 
guarantees  

Financial 

✓ Article 6(1)(q) 

V.4. Legal guarantee 

✓ Article 5(1)(e) and 
Article 6(1) (l) 

✓  Article 6(1)(g) 

V.5. 
Commercial 
guarantee  and  after-
sale 

✓ Article 5(1)(e) 

✓  Article 6(1)(g) 

VI. Validity of the contract in time 

78   Article 6(1) sets out the information requirements for distance and off-premises contracts whilst Article 5(1) 

sets out these requirements for other (on-premises) contracts 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Key area 

Consumer Rights 
Directive 2011/83/EU 

Unfair Commercial Practices 
Directive 2005/29/EC 

VI.1.  Duration 
of 
termination 
contract 

VI.2. 
withdrawal 

Right 

and 
the 

✓ Article 5(1)(f) and 
Article 6(1)(o) (6)(1)(p) 

✓  Article 6(1)(b) and 7(4)(a)   

of 

✓ Article 6(1)(k) Article 
6(1)(h)Article 6(1)(i)Article 
6(1)(j) 

✓  Article 6(1)(g) and 7(4)(e)   

VII. Legal terms 

VII.1. 
conditions 

General 

✓  Article 10(3) 

VII.3. Codes of conduct 

✓ Article 6(1)(n) 

✓  Article 10(2) 

VII.4 
Out-of-court 
complaint  and  redress 
mechanisms 

✓ Article 6(1)(t) 

✓  Article 6(1)(b) and 7(4)(d)   

5.2.4  Coherence with the Payment Services Directive 

Directive  2007/64/EC  which  entered  into  force  on  25  December  2007  is  also  a  full 
harmonisation Directive. It aims to foster the internal market on payment services, and 
more  especially  the  Single  Euro  Payments  Area  (SEPA),  by  eliminating  differences 
between domestic and cross-border payments within the euro area. Revisions introduced 
in 2015 include a prohibition of surcharging (additional charges for the right to pay e.g. 
with a card) whether the payment instrument is used in shops or online. Under the 2007 
Payment  Services  Directive,  several  MS  have  banned  credit  card  charges.      However, 
under the successor 2015 Payment Services Directive II, from 2018, credit card charges 
will be prohibited in all EU MS.  This will require updating of the CRD in the future since 
credit card charges will be outlawed altogether.  

Art. 19 and changes to the Payment Services  Directive 

Art. 19 of the CRD provides that ‘MS shall prohibit traders from charging consumers, in 
respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the 
trader  for  the  use  of  such  means.’  However,  under  the  revised  Payment  Services 
Directive  there  is  an  obligation  that  traders  cannot  charge  for  the  use  of  credit,  and 
debit,  cards.  Should  Art.  19  not  be  changed,  legal  uncertainty  may  arise  for    traders, 
since the Payment Services Directive  refers to  banning surcharges altogether, whereas 
the  CRD  allows  traders  to  charge  consumers  up  to  the  financial  transaction  costs 
incurred  by  the  trader  (e.g.  charges  levied  by  a  payment  services  provider  such  as 
Paypal or a card services providers such as Visa and Mastercard). 

5.2.5  The ADR Directive and the CRD 

Resolving  disputes  through  ADR  is  typically  easier,  faster  and  less  expensive  than 
resolving disputes before a  court.    In the  EU,  ADR procedures take different  forms e.g. 
mediation, conciliation, the use of an ombudsmen and arbitration. Directive 2013/11/EC 
(the  ADR  Directive),  aims  to  ensure  that  European  consumers  have  access  to  ADR 
entities  and  procedures  complying  with  the  requirements  as  set  out  by  the  Directive 
(e.g.  expertise,  independence,  impartiality,  fairness,  transparency,  effectiveness)  for 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

resolving  their  contractual  disputes  with  traders  (without  prejudice  to  the  form  which 
ADR procedures take in the Member States). Access to ADR is ensured no matter  what 
product  or service they purchase,  whether the product or service was purchased  online 
or offline and whether the trader is established in the consumer’s MS or in another one 
(only  disputes  regarding  health  and  higher  education  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of 
application of the ADR Directive).    

It  is  important  to  emphasise  that  the  CRD  precedes  the  ADR  Directive,  since  the  ADR 
Directive was only adopted on May 2013. 

Under the ADR Directive, online traders must inform consumers of the dispute resolution 
body/bodies by which they are covered. They should do this on their websites and in the 
general terms and conditions of sales or service contracts. They are required to provide 
a link (i.e. http://ec.europa.eu/odr) from their website to the  Online Dispute Resolution 
platform  (ODR  platform  http://ec.europa.eu/odr)),  a  web-based  platform  developed  by 
the  European  Commission  since  15  February  2016, enables  European  consumers  to 
solve  their  domestic  and  cross-border  problems  with  traders  with  the  help  of  the  ADR 
entities. 

The  interaction  of  ADR  with  the  CRD  relates  to  both  coherence  (the  CRD  precedes  the 
ADR  Directive,  since  the  ADR  Directive  was  only  adopted  on  May  2013),  and  to 
full  and  effective 
effectiveness,  since  ADR  mechanisms  support 
implementation, in saving consumers and traders money by avoiding court action.  

the  CRD’s 

Article  13  (Consumer  information  by  traders)  of  Directive  2013/11/EU  sets  out  a 
requirement that traders must inform  consumers about the ADR.  It is  worth  comparing 
this to the information requirements in the CRD. However, there do not appear to be any 
coherence  issues  regarding  the  interplay  between  the  CRD  and  the  ADR  Directive.  For 
example,  Article  3(3)  of  the  ADR  Directive  (“Relationship  with  other  Union  legal  acts”) 
makes clear that “Article 13 of this Directive shall be without prejudice to provisions on 
consumer information on out-of-court redress procedures contained in other Union legal 
acts  which  shall  apply  in  addition  to  that  Article”.   This  is  relevant  since  Article  6(1)t 
states  in  relation  to  information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts 
that  where  applicable,  consumers  should  be  given  the  possibility  of  having  recourse  to 
an  out-of-court  complaint  and  redress  mechanism,  to  which  the  trader  is  subject,  and 
the  methods  for  having  access  to  it.  However,  given  that  there  are  a  wide  variety  of 
national  ADR  mechanisms  (mentioned  in  the  recitals  of  the  ADR  Directive),  it  does  not 
prescribe a particular type  of ADR. However,  no equivalent is stated  under Article 5 for 
contracts other than distance and off-premises, which could arguably be a legal gap.    

The  ADR  Directive  was  viewed  by  stakeholders  interviewed  as  being  closely  linked  to, 
and  supportive  of  the  effective  implementation  of  the  CRD  (see  box  below).  As  noted 
earlier however consumers responding to this survey appeared not to have received too 
much information on  out-of-court and  redress mechanism (refer back to Figure 3-26 in 
Section 3) but this is more to do with compliance than with coherence between the two 
Directives. 

146 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The role of ADR in ensuring compliance with the CRD – EESC report on findings 

The  role  of  alternative  dispute  resolution  (ADR)  mechanisms  was  raised  during  several 
fact-finding  missions.  Since  spring  2016,  Latvia  has  had  an  ADR  mechanism  ('The 
Dispute  Resolution  Commission')  which  has  a  sectoral  membership  structure,  with 
retired  judges  making  recommendations  to  the  state  authorities79.  In  Italy,  the  role  of 
mediators is seen as that of listeners rather than active conciliators80. In Spain, dispute 
settlement  mechanism  is  used  for  consumers  and  companies  and  it  is  deemed  to  work 
well:  3000  complaints  dealt  with  in  the  last  year81.  In  Poland,  ADR  is  a  technical 
possibility, as consumers can go the national organisation to find out whether their rights 
were violated. However, if there is no agreement, consumers have to go court82. Belgium 
introduced  an  ADR  system  in  2015  (a  general  consumer  ombudsman  service)  and  the 
initial impression of consumer representatives is that it has been useful83. 

5.2.6  The Injunctions Directive and the CRD 

The  Injunctions  Directive  (ID)  (2009/22/EC)  aims  to  ensure  the  protection  of  collective 
interests  of consumers  in the internal market.  The Directive provides  that all MS put in 
place  injunction  procedures  for  stopping  infringements  of  EU  consumer  rights  (as 
enumerated  in  the  Annex  to  the  Directive  and  transposed  into  national  law).  In  the 
context of the CRD, - the purpose of an injunction issued by a court or an administrative 
body in a is to require the trader to cease a practice non-compliant with the obligation as 
set out by the Directive. 

The  Directive  harmonises  some  aspects  of  the  injunctions  procedure  across  the  EU.  It 
allows qualified entities from a MS – in particular consumer representative bodies and/or 
independent public bodies - to seek an injunction in their MS and another MS where the 
infringement  originated.  As  such,  the  ID  is  concerned  with  both  domestic  and  cross-
border infringements and national procedures and the legal standing of qualified entities 
in  another  MS  where  the  infringement  originated.  Injunctions  are  applicable  to  a  broad 
range  of  consumer  law  infringements  and  qualified  entities  can  bring  an  injunction  for 
infringements  which  harm  collective  consumer  interests  as  set  out  in  the  Directives 
relating.  

The current Annex I to the Injunctions Directive refers to the two predecessor Directives 
in respect of off-premises and distance contracts respectively (i.e. Directive 85/577/EEC 
and Directive 97/7/EC). Since the ID was adopted in 1998 and codified in 2009 prior to 
the CRD’s adoption in 2011, the Annex refers to the two pieces  of outdated legislation. 
However, Article 31 (Repeals) of the CRD makes clear that   “references to the repealed 
Directives  shall  be  construed  as  references  to  this  Directive  and  shall  be  read  in 
accordance  with  the  correlation  table  set  out  in  Annex  II”.  The  ID  therefore  covers  the 
CRD, although the ID is not explicitly mentioned in the correlation table in the annex to 
the  CRD,  unlike  for  example  the  CPC.    Whilst  not  seen  as  a  major  issue  from  a 
stakeholder perspective, if the CRD were to be modified in future, then the annex in the 
ID referring to the CRD should be amended, as was the case for the ADR Directive. 

79   Mission Riga, Meeting with Employers. 
80   Meeting Rome, Meeting with Consumers Organisations. 
81   Mission Madrid, Meeting with Employers. 
82   Mission Warsaw, Meeting with Employers. 
83   Mission Brussels, Meeting with Consumer Organisations. 

147 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The  ID  is  part  of  the  Fitness  Check  of  the  EU  consumer  and  marketing  law.  In  this 
context,  the  functioning  of  the  injunction  procedure  at  national  level  and  ideas  for 
possible  solutions  to  strengthen  its  effectiveness  at  EU  level  was  the  subject  of  a 
breakout session at the European Consumer Summit.  Feedback received relating to the 
effectiveness  of  the  injunctions  procedure  addressed  a  series  of  issues  not  specifically 
related  to  the  CRD.  Examples  of  recommendations  made  to  strengthen  the  ID’s 
effectiveness  include:  the  need  to  increase  legal  certainty  (with  the  same  rules  for  all 
injunction  proceedings)  and  the  importance  of  integrating  injunctions  into  a  consistent 
systems of mechanisms for the enforcement of consumer law. No specific problems were 
identified pertaining to the relationship between the ID and the CRD since when the ID 
was  adopted,  there  was  already  an  explicit  reference  in  the  Annex  that  the  Directive 
applies to both off-premises and distance contracts. As a tool to potentially enhance the 
effectiveness  of  CRD  implementation,  further  feedback  was  that  the  ID  in  general,  and 
cross-border  injunction  proceedings  in  particular,  are  too  infrequently  used  against 
traders  with  insufficient  harmonisation  across  EU  MS  in  respect  of  the  types  of 
procedures and the frequency of use of the mechanism. 

Feedback at the Consumer Summit also pointed to variations between Member States in 
respect  of  the  sanctions  applied  in  relation  to  non-compliance  with  injunctions  orders 
issued.    However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  ID  does  not  cover  sanctions  for 
infringements  of  EU  consumer  law  themselves,  which  are  instead  addressed  in  the 
relevant national laws (or consumer codes) relating to the transposition of the CRD used. 

  Coherence between the CRD and sectoral legislation  

Many sectors are excluded from the scope of the Directive (Art 3(3)). The CRD does not 
apply  in  sectors  such  as  financial  services  and  package  holidays  since  these  are 
regulated through sector-specific legislation84.  The full list is given below.  

Sectors generally outside the scope of the CRD 

•  Social services; 

•  Health care;  

•  Gambling; 

•  Financial services; 

•  Real Estate; 

•  Construction of new buildings; 

•  Package travel, package holidays and package tours; 

•  Timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts; 

•  Public  office-holders  who  have  a  statutory  obligation  to  be  independent  and 
impartial  in  ensuring  the  consumer  only  concludes  the  contract  on  the  basis  of 
careful legal consideration and with the knowledge of its legal scope; 

•  The supply of foodstuffs85, beverages or other consumption goods delivered directly 

to the consumer; and 

•  Passenger transport services (however, there are some Articles of the CRD that are 

84   For  instance,  timeshare,  long-term  holiday  product,  resale  and  exchange  contracts  are  regulated  through 
Directive  2008/122/EC  of  14  January  2009  and  package  travel,  package  holidays  and  package  tours  are 
regulated  through  the  new  Package  Travel  Directive  (2015/2302/EU),  which  extended  protection  beyond 
the 1990 EU Package Travel Directive. 

85   Note that the Food Information to Consumers Regulation sets out information requirements to be given to 
consumers  on  nutritional  value  but  it  is  not  considered  a  core  regulation  relevant  to  the  CRD  –  yet,  our 
research suggest no issues with coherence. 

148 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

applicable – see analysis below). 

In addition, the provisions of the Directive do not apply to contracts: 

•  Concluded  by  means  of  automatic  vending  machines  or  automated  commercial 

premises; and 

•  Concluded  with  telecommunications  operators  through  public  payphones  for  their 
use or concluded for the use of one single connection by telephone, Internet or fax 
established by a consumer. 

Consultation undertaken for this study  has not revealed significant issues  with the CRD 
and  sector  specific  legislation.  Germany  was  the  only  MS  highlighting  inconsistencies 
between  the  CRD  with  other  EU  Directives.  According  to  a  working  staff  document 
produced  by  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Consumer  Legislation  in  2016,  inconsistencies 
were  mainly  identified  between  the  CRD  and  the  Distance-selling  of  Financial  Services 
Directive  (Directive  2002/65/EC  —  consumer  protection  in  cases  of  distance-selling  of 
financial  services)  in  the  area  of  pre-contractual  information  obligations,  including 
information  obligations  relating  to  the  RoW.  The  document  does  not  provide  a  specific 
analysis illustrating practical examples of inconsistencies however.  

Respondents  to  the  evaluation  conducted  by  the  EESC  on  the  CRD  suggested  that  the 
Directive  could  be  extended  to  some  of  the  above  and  other  sectors,  such  as  the  real 
estate  and  pharmaceutical  sectors,  financial  services,  telecommunication  operators  and 
package  travel.  However,  the  Committee  concluded  that  it  is  not  considered  the  right 
time  to  extend  the  scope  of  the  Directive  to  any  of  the  sectors  currently  excluded 
because of two reasons:  

• 

• 

the subject matter is regulated and  

it is included under the exceptions.  

Other  sectors  are  however  included  under  both  the  CRD  and  sectoral  legislation.  These 
include,  inter  alia,  electronic  communications  and  energy  and  passenger  transport 
services.      Article  3(2)  of  the  CRD  notes  that  if  any  provisions  of  the  Directive  conflict 
with  a  provision  of  another  Union  Act  governing  specific  sectors,  the  provision  of  the 
Union  Act  shall  prevail and  shall  apply  to  those  specific  sectors.    A  particular  focus  has 
been  put  on  certain  sectors,  such  as  electronic  communications  and  energy,  and  other 
sectors subject to sectoral legislation but required to comply with specific articles of the 
CRD, such as passenger transport services. 

5.3.1  Coherence with electronic communications and energy 

The CRD was designed to complement existing sector-specific consumer protection rules 
in  areas  such  as  electronic  communications  and  energy86.  With  regard  to  information 
requirements set out in sector-specific legislation, additional requirements are set out for 
instance in the Universal Service Directive (2002/22/EC)87 for e-communications services 
(dealing  with  end-user  rights),  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (2010/13/EU) 
for  audiovisual  services,  and  in  the  energy  sector,  Directive  2009/72/EC  for  electricity, 
Directive 2009/73/EC for natural gas and Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency88.  

86   See: http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/energy-supply/contracts-energy-

consumption/index_en.htm      

87   See: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32002L0022     
88  The  Commission  has  proposed  to  expand  consumer  rights  in  the  energy  sector  in  order  to  allow  them  to 
actively  participate  in  the  energy  market  (see  https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/markets-and-
consumers/consumer-rights-and-protection). 

149 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In  respect  of  consumer  rights  relating  to  contracts  in  the  energy  sector,  to  the  extent 
that  the  sector  is  not  subject  to  sector-specific  legislation  in  this  area,  traders  are 
required to follow the general principles of the CRD.  Research undertaken for this study 
has  shown  that  there  have  been  a  number  of  complaints  and  legal  cases  in  respect  of 
non-compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  CRD  in  the  energy  sector89.  In  some  cases, 
these are due to the complexities of the sector in terms of pricing, which has resulted in 
greater potential for consumers to be misled. Other breaches specific to the CRD include: 
lack of pre-contractual information about the trader’s identity (Art. 6), various obstacles 
to the exercise of the RoW (Art. 9) and inertia selling (under Art. 27).  The enforcement 
authority has taken action against energy companies (refer to Section 3 for cases found 
in  Italy  under  the  enforcement  and  compliance  sub-section).  Compliance  issues  were 
also identified in the EESC’s report.  

In  the  area  of  electronic  communications  services,  whilst  a  number  of  legal  cases  were 
identified  concerning  telecommunications  companies,  for  instances,  those  providing 
phone  and  broadband  internet  services,  these  cases  typically  related  to  Art.  21 
(Communication  by  telephone),  i.e.  the  lack  of  provision  of  access  to  a  standard  rate 
phone call upon the conclusion of a contract. There did not appear to be any problems in 
respect of the CRD specific to this sector, or relating to the interaction between the CRD 
and sector-specific legislation either. 

Respondents  to  the  OPC  were  asked  to  assess  the  interplay  between  EU  consumer  and 
marketing  rules  and  EU  sector-specific  consumer  rights  in  the  area  of  electronic 
communications  services  (CIVIC,  2016).  The  results  are  replicated  in  the  next  Figure. 
42%  of  respondents  agree  that  EU  consumer  and  marketing  rules  provide  adequate 
complementary  protection  regarding  issues  which  are  not  expressly  regulated  by  the 
sector-specific  EU  rules  in  the  area  of  electronic  communications  services  and  17% 
disagree  and/or  tend  to  disagree  (third  bar  in  the  figure90).  41%  responded  with  “no 
opinion/don’t  know”  (these  responses  are  mostly  from  traders  and  their  associations). 
Note however that these rules include other rules rather than the CRD rules alone, thus 
caution is needed when interpreting the results.  

89   www.agcm.it/en/newsroom/press-releases/2283-ps9769-ps10000-ps9815-ps9999-ps9578-ps9406-

ps9834-fines-of-%E2%82%AC6-0-million-to-7-companies-providing-electricity-and-gas-services-for-the-
activation-of-unsolicited-supplies.html  

90  Note  that  the  other  bars  in  the  chart  refer  to  aspects  of  awareness  and  enforcement;  thus,  they  will  be 

covered in other sections of this report.  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 5-1: Views on the interplay between EU consumer and marketing rules 
and EU sector-specific consumer rights in the area of electronic 
communications services 

Question: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about 
the  interplay  between  EU  consumer  and  marketing  rules  and  EU  sector-specific 
consumer rights in the area of electronic communications services?  

Source: CIVIC (2017): Public consultation for the Fitness Check of EU consumer and 
marketing law. 

5.3.2  Coherence with passenger transport-related legislation 

Passenger  transport  services  are  not  generally  subject  to  the  CRD,  with  the  following 
exemptions: 

•  Articles 8(2): obligation to pay in relation to distance contracts91,  

•  Article 19: unjustified surcharges for the use of means of payment and  

•  Article 22: additional payments which ban pre-ticked boxes92.    

91   Art. 8(2) states that “if a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means places the consumer under 
an obligation to pay, the trader shall make the consumer aware in a clear and prominent manner, and 
directly before the consumer places his order”. 

92   According to the DG JUST interpretative guidance document on the CRD, pre-ticked boxes prohibited by 

Article 22 could concern, for example: an insurance contract when buying an air ticket. 

151 

31%21%14%12%7%17%24%28%24%15%3%7%13%16%21%4%5%4%4%15%45%43%41%44%42%The co-operation between the various publicenforcement authorities in charge ofconsumer protection should be strengthenedThe competent public enforcementauthorities in the relevant sector are aware ofthe complementary application of these EUrules and enforce them where appropriateEU consumer and marketing rules provideadequate complementary protectionregarding issues, which are not expresslyregulated by the sector-specific EU rulesTraders in the relevant sector are awareof the complementary application ofthese EU rules and comply with themConsumers are aware about thecomplementary application of EU consumerand marketing rules in the specific sectorStrongly agreeTend to agreeTend to disagreeStrongly disagreeNo opinion/don't know 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The  OPC  reported  on  stakeholders  views  on  the  interplay  between  EU  consumer  and 
marketing  rules  and  EU  sector-specific  consumer  rights  in  the  area  of  passenger 
transport.  29%  of  respondents  noted  that  traders  were  aware  of  the  complementary 
application whilst only 15% thought consumers were. Moreover,  36% strongly agree or 
tend  to  agree  that  EU  consumer  and  marketing  rules  provide  adequate  complementary 
protection  regarding  issues  which  are  not  expressly  regulated  by  the  sector-specific  EU 
rules in the area of passenger transport. Only  13% disagree with this statement (either 
tend to disagree or strongly disagree), with 51% selecting “no opinion/don’t know”.  

Figure 5-2: Views on the interplay between EU consumer and marketing rules 
and EU sector-specific consumer rights in the area of passenger transport 

Question: How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about 
the  interplay  between  EU  consumer  and  marketing  rules  and  EU  sector-specific 
consumer rights in the area of passenger transport? 

Source: CIVIC (2017): Public consultation for the Fitness Check of EU consumer and 
marketing law. 

Through  the  interviews,  CRD  stakeholders  were  also  asked  whether  there  were  any 
particular  problems  in  respect  of  the  interaction  between  the  CRD  and  the  passenger 
transport sector. Stakeholders did not perceive there to be any problems relating to the 
CRD  and  legislation  specific  to  the  transport  sector.  As  for  the  broader  question  as  to 
whether  it  has  caused  any  difficulties  to  have  three  Articles  within  the  CRD  which  are 
applicable  to  the  passenger  transport  sector,  this  does  not  appear  to  have  proved 
problematic.  Moreover, some synergies have been highlighted between the provisions of 
the  CRD  and  passenger  transport  legislation.  In  particular,  Regulation  1008/2008 
prohibits the use of pre-ticked boxes in the air transport sector, in line with Art 22 of the 
CRD.  

152 

30%12%14%8%2%19%24%18%21%13%2%10%13%17%23%2%3%5%4%12%47%51%50%50%49%The co-operation between the various publicenforcement authorities in charge ofconsumer protection should be strengthenedEU consumer and marketing rules provideadequate complementary protectionregarding issues, which are not expresslyregulated by the sector-specific EU rulesThe competent public enforcement authoritiesin the relevant sector are aware of thecomplementary application of these EU rulesand enforce them where appropriateTraders in the relevant sector are aware of the complementary application of these EU rules and comply with themConsumers are aware about thecomplementary application of EU consumerand marketing rules in the specific sectorStrongly agreeTend to agreeTend to disagreeStrongly disagreeNo opinion / don't know 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Yet,  there  are  arguably  a  number  of  issues  relating  to  how  compliant  the  passenger 
transport sector is with Article 22. The EESC’s evaluation show that 22% of respondents 
report that the occurrence of additional payments by means of tick boxes while shopping 
online has decreased since June 2014, but 20% believe it has stayed the same and 15% 
believe it has actually increased. 43% did not know (EESC, 2017). According to 34% of 
the  EECs  responding  to  the  questionnaire,  consumers  have  complained  to  them  often 
about pre-ticked boxes  (refer back to  Figure 3-24 in Section 3). Although, they did not 
provide specific data on passenger transport or sector, it is known that in 2015, 22% of 
all complaints addressed to the ECC network was related to airline services  and 36% to 
transport overall (CEC, 2016).  

5.3.3  Sectors outside the scope of the CRD  

In relation to sectors outside the scope of the CRD, there are a number of issues worthy 
of attention in relation to coherence.  This is because, although certain types of contracts 
are  exempt  from  the  Directive,  the  general  principles  of  the  CRD  may  still  apply  (as 
shown by the analysis of enforcement cases).  

The  financial  services  sector  is  excluded  from  the  CRD,  since  there  are  specific  rules 
governing  consumer  financial  services,  namely  Directive  2002/65/EC  of  23  September 
2002  concerning  the  distance  marketing  of  consumer  financial  services  and  Directive 
2008/48/EC  of  23  April  2008  on  credit  agreements  for  consumers.  However,  it  is 
important to note that the CRD applies when financial services are incorporated within a 
sales or service contract i.e. through ancillary contracts (even though they would still be 
subject  to  the  sector-specific  legislation  applicable  to  financial  services  mentioned 
above). DG JUST guidance notes that “the same sales or service contract may also cover 
services that are not governed by the CRD. For example, a sales or service contract may 
make it possible to pay the price in instalments at a certain interest rate. Such a contract 
would  also  be  subject  to  the  specific  rules  governing  consumer  financial  services.  The 
rules  on  ancillary  contracts  in  Article  15  of  the  CRD  would  apply  to  such  contracts  by 
analogy” (pg. 7). This may increase legal uncertainty for consumers.  

The CRD and financial sector legislation  

A comparative law perspective is provided in a 2016 book that deals with the risks of 
Distance Selling93 between Directive 2002/65/EC on the distance marketing of consumer 
financial services and Directive 2011/83/EU. This notes that stronger levels of protection 
are  needed  in  some  sector-specific  areas  than  the  more  general  approach  of  the  CRD. 
“There  are  material  differences  among  financial  services  and  other  ordinary  consumer 
contracts. Financial services are more material and the level of vigilance required by the 
consumer  is  higher”.      Moreover,  it  is  noted  that  “most  of  the  differences  relate  to  the 
type  of  pre-contractual  information  required.  Under  Directive  2002/65/EC,  “more 
information  is  required  about  the  providers’  representatives  in  the  MS  where  the 
consumer  is  established  and  about  any  professional  intermediaries,  about  the  trade 
registry of the provider and about the supervising authority”. 

93   "Dematerialized" Insurance - Distance Selling and Cyber Risks from an International Perspective, Editors: 

Marano, Pierpaolo, Rokas, Ioannis, Kochenburger, Peter (Eds.), 2016 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

  Coherence with proposed new EU legislation 

Since  the  CRD  was  adopted,  the  Commission  has  adopted  the  Digital  Single  Market 
(“DSM”) Strategy in May 2015.  Under the DSM, the EC also launched two new proposed 
Directives that are related to the CRD, namely:  

1.  A Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply 

of digital content (COM/2015/0634 final - 2015/0287 (COD))  

2.  A Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online 

and other distance sales of goods (COM/2015/0635 final - 2015/0288 (COD)). 

The Digital Contracts Directive Proposal94 is intended to fill the legal gap in consumer law 
that  relates  to  contractual  aspects.  It  would  supplement  the  CRD  and  amend/repeal 
other directives. The proposal highlights that whilst some MS (e.g. the NL, the UK) have 
already developed legislation for contractual aspects related to digital content, there are 
no EU rules that protect consumers from digital content that is not in conformity with the 
contract.  The  proposal  therefore  aims  to  avoid  further  legal  fragmentation.  It  also 
intends  to  deal  with  two  contractual  issues  (the  modification  and  termination  of  long 
term  contracts)  that  have  previously  been  highlighted  as  problems.  In  addition,  it 
supplements Directive 2000/31/EC (E-commerce Directive). The directive would be a full 
harmonisation  directive  and  would  apply  to  any  contract  where  the  trader  provides 
digital  content  to  the  consumer  for  money  (i.e.  a  price)  or  in  return  for  data  (personal 
data or other data).   

The proposal for a directive “on  certain aspects concerning contracts  for the  online and 
other distance sales of  goods” aims to  partly  replace the existing Consumer Sales  and 
Guarantees  Directive95  with  regard  to  distance  sales  of  tangible  goods  (both  online  and 
offline).  It  is  proposed  that  this  Directive  would  also  be  a  maximum  harmonisation 
Directive.  

Whilst the above Directives do not appear to be formally within the scope of this study, a 
number  of  issues  and  concerns  were  raised  about  the  possible  effects  of  the  Digital 
Contracts Directive Proposal  on the CRD by some stakeholders.    In particular, although 
most  stakeholders  welcome the  extension of  consumer protection to include free  online 
digital  content  and  free  online  subscription  services,  there  is  a  concern  that  digital 
content  is  already  covered  through  the  CRD  and  adding  to  the  existing  body  of 
legislation  goes  against  the  Better  Regulation  principles  and  the  need  for  regulatory 
simplification (more on this in Section 6 & 7).  

On 25 May 2016, the Commission adopted a proposal to review the CPC Regulation (as a 
part of the Digital Single Market e-commerce package). The review is aimed at ensuring 
more  effective  and  coherent  enforcement  of  EU  consumer  legislation  across  borders  by 
clarifying  and  enhancing  the  powers  of  enforcement  authorities,  detecting  and 
addressing 
improving  market  surveillance  and  alert 
mechanisms.  

infringements 

faster,  and 

94   European Commission (2015):  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 

certain aspects covering contracts for the supply of digital content, COM(2015) 634 final. 

95 Directive 1999/44/EC 

154 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

  Coherence with actions at national level 

The survey asked national competent authorities to what extent had the Directive proved 
complementary to existing measures and actions. Nearly 70%  noted that this had been 
moderately to very complementary (refer to Figure 5-3).   

Several  competent  authorities  provided  additional  comments.    One  respondent  stated 
that  the  majority  of  the  requirements  of  the  CRD  had  existed  (in  principle)  prior  to  its 
adoption, whilst a further respondent commented that the transposition of the CRD into 
national law was used as an opportunity for a systematic review of consumer protection 
rules.  

Figure 5-3: National competent authorities: To what extent has the CRD proved 
complementary  to  existing  measures  and  actions  to  strengthen  consumer 
protection in your MS? (Q30) 

Q30 To what extent has Directive 2011/83/EU proved complementary to 
existing measures and actions to strengthen consumer protection in your 
Member State in relevant areas and markets? (N = 38)

4

21

2

5

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very complementary

Moderately complementary No complementary

Don’t know

No opinion

  Summary of findings on coherence  

the  CRD 

includes  more  detailed  pre-contractual 

Overall, the Directive  has been found to be  coherent with other relevant EU legislation. 
The  information  that  traders  are  required  to  provide  about  themselves  is  substantively 
similar  across  the  CRD,  the  Services  Directive  and  the  e-Commerce  Directive 
respectively  but 
information 
requirements  in  respect  of  the  description  of  the  product  (i.e.  main  characteristics, 
functionality  and  interoperability  of  digital  content)  and  price.  This  means  that  the 
provision  of  pre-contractual  information  by  a  trader  in  accordance  with  the  CRD  is 
sufficient  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  e-Commerce  and  Services  Directives. 
The fact that the information requirements in older pieces  of horizontal legislation were 
drawn up in different time periods is also an important fact to recall. Moreover, should a 
provision of the e-Commerce Directive or the Services Directive on the content and the 
manner in which the information is to be provided conflict with a provision of the CRD, 
the  provision  of  the  CRD  shall  prevail  (according  to  Article  6(8)(2)).  Notwithstanding 
differences in the underlying objectives of the legislation, some stakeholders agreed that 
steps  could  be  undertaken  to  simplify  information  requirements  (through  an  alignment 
process  and  future  legislative  review  or  by  including  all  the  general  information 
provisions  in  the  CRD  and  making  explicit  reference  to  these  being  applicable  in  other 
pieces of legislation).  

As for sectoral legislation, no major problems have been identified relating to coherence. 
This  is  because  sectors  with  sector-specific  legislation  are  generally  exempt  from  the 
CRD  and  the  lex  specialis  principles  under  Art.  3(2)  notes  that  if  any  provisions  of  the 
CRD  conflict  with  a  provision  of  another  Union  Act  governing  specific  sectors,  the 
provision of the Union Act shall prevail and shall apply to those specific sectors.  

155 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

On  the  other  hand,  the  new  legislative  proposals  on  digital  content  and  the  online  and 
other distance sales of goods will offer a perfect opportunity to address some remaining 
uncertainty concerning digital products, as highlighted by the stakeholders.   

The following Table summarises the findings of the evaluation in terms of coherence.   

Table 5-4:  Summary of findings on CRD and its coherence 

Key  to  rating:  (reflecting 
evaluation when more than one key) 

range 

in 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

To what extent is the 
intervention coherent 
internally? 

To what extent is this 
intervention coherent 
with other 
interventions which 
have similar 
objectives? 

+/++:  although  the  CRD  has  reduced  legal  uncertainty  with 
regard  to  aspects  of  consumer  protection  (e.g.  delivery  times, 
passing of the risk, banning pre-ticked boxes), some provisions 
have  been  more  difficult  to  interpret  and  apply  such  as  the 
exemptions from RoW and the effects from the RoW on traders 
(diminished value). Some recommendations to improve internal 
coherence  include  the  provision  of  additional  guidance  on 
definitions,  application  to  free-digital  content,  exemptions  from 
RoW, accounting for diminished value. Most of the issues raised 
concern about the specific requirements for online platforms.  

++:  Examination  of  the  linkages  between  the  CRD  and  other 
Directives has not revealed significant inconsistencies. However, 
some stakeholders pointed to the fact that there might be scope 
to  strengthen  coherence 
information 
requirements  set  out  in  the  CRD  and  in  other  relevant 
horizontal  Directives,  namely  the  Services  Directive  and  the  e-
Commerce  Directive,  in  order  to  harmonise  the  basic  common 
requirements across all three Directives insofar as possible.  

in  respect  of 

the 

There  is  a  specific issue  in  relation  to  improving  the  coherence 
between the information requirements set out in Art. 6(1) of the 
CRD and Art. 7(4) of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 
(UCPD).    Many,  although  by  no  means  all  stakeholders, 
supported  eliminating 
information 
the  need 
requirements  in  the  UCPD  at  the  marketing  stage  when  such 
requirements are already incorporated into the CRD at the pre-
contractual stage. 

to  meet 

To what extent is the 
intervention coherent 
with wider EU policy? 

++:  The  Commission  has  adopted  the  Digital  Single  Market 
(“DSM”)  Strategy  in  2015.  Under  this,  it  launched  two  new 
proposed  Directives  that  are  related  to  the  CRD  on  digital 
content and the online and other distance sales of goods.  

The  purpose  of  the  above  Directives  would  be  to  further 
for  e-
harmonise  consumer  contract  rules  on  remedies 
commerce and digital content transactions. They will cover free 
online  services  such  as  social  media  or  cloud  services  and  free 
digital content thus complementing the CRD. No problems with 
coherence are thus envisaged.  

To what extent is the 
intervention coherent 

0/++:  the  Directive  is  said  to  be  complementary  to  existing 
measures  and  actions  at  national level.  Nearly  70%  noted  that 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 5-4:  Summary of findings on CRD and its coherence 

this  had  been  moderately  to  very  complementary  but  the 
explanations given did not provide a great level of detail.   

with measures and 
actions to strengthen 
consumer protections 
at national level in 
relevant areas and 
markets? 

157 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

6  The relevance of CRD in the current market 

  Overview of Section 

The assessment of relevance looks at the relationship between the needs and problems 
in  society  and  the  objectives  of  the  intervention.  Under  this  criterion, it is necessary  to 
consider  how  far  the  objectives  set  by  the  Directive  remain  relevant,  in  particular,  the 
objectives of: 

•  Achieving a high level of consumer protection across the EU; and 

•  Contributing  to  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  by  approximating 
certain  aspects  of  Member  States'  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions 
concerning contracts concluded between consumers and traders. 

The evaluation questions are set out below. 

•  To what extent have the (original) objectives proven to be appropriate for the 

intervention in question?  

•  How well do the (original) objectives (still) correspond to the needs within the EU? 

Have the needs of consumer protection changed since the adoption of the Directive? 
Is the scope of the Directive still appropriate? This will include, for example, the 
following questions: 

-  How well adapted is the intervention to subsequent technological or scientific 
advances? (N.B. Could include issues related to the specify policy here e.g. 
social, environmental) How well adapted is the Directive to technological or 
scientific advances?  

-  How relevant is the EU intervention to EU citizens? Have the relevant markets 
changed  significantly  rendering  some  of  the  provisions  in  the  Directive  less 
effective than expected? 

  Stakeholders’ views on relevance of CRD 

The first objective of the CRD, achieving a high level of consumer protection across the 
EU  remains  highly  relevant,  moreover,  as  online  purchases  by  internet  users  are  only 
expected  to  increase  in  the  future.    This  objective  is  also  incorporated  into  the  Lisbon 
Treaty  and  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU).  Article  114 
TFEU  establishes  the  legal  basis  for  harmonisation  measures  aimed  at  establishing  the 
internal  market.  It  also  emphasises  the  objective  of  ensuring  a  high  level  of  consumer 
protection.  As  distance  and  off-premises  trade  increases,  it  is  also  necessary  to  ensure 
that enterprises are treated fairly; thus the objective of the CRD  on achieving the right 
balance  between  consumer  protection  and  the  competitiveness  of  enterprises  also 
remains relevant.  

The survey asked  stakeholders whether the objectives  of  the  CRD were still relevant to 
the needs of consumers and traders within the EU. Their views are described below.   

158 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Free text from Consumer and Trade Associations survey Q 21: Do you think that 
the  objectives  of  the  CRD  are  still  relevant  to  the  needs  of  consumers  and/or 
traders within the EU? 

•  I would say quite relevant. […].  

•  These objectives are still relevant. However, due to the quick pace of technical 

development especially in the E-Commerce sector, there will be a need of greater 
flexibility and more technically neutral solutions than currently shown by the CRD.  

•  Pre-contractual information obligations of traders have to be reduced and simplified.    
We wonder how icons could help in this respect. An icon/symbol can only present the 
category of information but not the content of the information.   

•  Under current economic conditions, it is important to protect consumers' economic 

interests and control unfair and abusive business practices especially in the field of e-
commerce. 

•  Yes, these objectives intend to reduce the uncertainty plaguing consumers and 
businesses when they intervene in these cross-border business transactions 

The  EESC’s  report  on  the  evaluation  of  the  CRD  also  asked  stakeholders  about  the 
relevance of the Directive. Consumer and business associations as well as trade unions 
confirmed the relevance of this directive on commercial transactions between consumers 
and  businesses  including  SMEs  (ESSC,  2017).  The  vast  majority  of  the  consumer 
associations  (see  Figure  6-1)  responding  to  the  survey  agree  that  the  objectives  of  the 
CRD are still relevant to the needs of consumers.   

Figure 6-1: Consumer associations’ views on the objectives of the CRD and their 
relevance (Q21) 

Q21 Do you think that the objectives of the CRD are still relevant to the 
needs of consumers and/or traders within the EU? (N = 22)

14

5

1

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very relevant

Slightly relevant

Not relevant or irrelevant

Don’t know/No opinion

Trader associations’ views were also quite positive on the relevance of the objectives of 
the  CRD,  with  very  small  differences  in  opinion  in  comparison  with  the  consumer 
representatives (see Figure 6-2).  

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  6-2:  Trade  associations’  views  on  the  objectives  of  the  CRD  and  their 
relevance (Q21) 

Q21 Do you think that the objectives of the CRD are still relevant to the 
needs of consumers and/or traders within the EU? (N = 22)

12

6

3

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very relevant

Slightly relevant

Not relevant or irrelevant

Slightly irrelevant

Consumers  were  asked  which  aspects  were  the  most  relevant  when  making  purchases 
with regard to  current  requirements. Figure 6-3 shows that having the price  clear prior 
to  placing  the  order  is  regarded  as  the  most  important.  Of  more  moderate  importance 
are the after sales and complaint procedure, but still considered to be of high importance 
by 59% of the consumers responding to the online survey.  

Figure  6-3:  Consumers’  views  on  the  relevance  of  different  provisions  (Q19) 
(NB: % of less than 5% not given). 

Q19 In your opinion, how important are the following when making 
purchases (N = 254)

The total price is clear prior to placing my order (254)

The trader must seek my express consent to any extra
payment (254)

When placing my order on-line, the trader must clearly
inform me about the good, service or digital content I…

When making purchases on-line, via telephone or
outside business premises, I can exercise RoW for 14…

When making purchases on-line, via telephone or
outside business premises, information about the…

When making purchases of digital content, information
about the product compatibility and functionality is…

Information about terminating the contract is clearly
reported (253)

Promotional offers or competitions and games are
clearly identifiable (254)

Information about after-sales services is clearly
reported (254)

Information about the complaint handling policy is
clearly reported (254)

96%

91%

90%

80%

79%

77%

72%

64%

62%

59%

7%

7%

15%

14%

6%

15%

23%

26%

8%

30%

31%

6%

9%

High importance

Medium importance

Low importance

No opinion

Don't know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

NB Figure 6-3: More than one option could be selected, hence the sum of the different options is 
higher than the respondent base (N) 

160 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

The  behavioural  experiment  also  asked  consumers  about  the  relevance  of  different 
information requirements. The most relevant information requirements were deemed to 
be the arrangements for payments and total prices, including taxes. Less important, but 
still  relevant  to  make  a  decision,  were  the  out-of-court  complaint  and  redress 
mechanisms (around 60% thought this was relevant).  

There  is  also  strong  stakeholder  support  among  European  and  national  consumer 
organisations for the CRD, which is important not only in terms of protecting consumers’ 
rights,  but  also  from  a  jobs  and  growth  perspective.  Throughout  the  interviews 
conducted,  the  Directive  was  recognised  by  national  authorities  and  by  consumer 
organisations  as  being  particularly  relevant  in  the  context  of  the  launch  of  the  DSM 
Strategy in 2015.   

The  use  of  self  and  co-regulation  in  combination  with  the  CRD  was  suggested  as  an 
approach  to  keep  up  with  the  evolving  nature  of  the  digital  and  e-commerce  markets.  
This would still afford the protection provided by the CRD, but also provide an industry 
specific standard that could be quickly updated.  

  Trends and future-proofing 

Throughout  the  interviews  and  the  literature  review  it  has  become  clear  that  the 
increased  use  of  social  media  by  both  traders  and  consumers  has  given  rise  to  some 
gaps in ensuring consumer protection. A few stakeholders have identified certain gaps in 
consumer  protection  with  regard  to  online  platforms  and  free  online  services  to  which 
the rules of the CRD do not apply. The specific comments concerning these relate to: 

• 

Information  requirements  (Art.  6  (1)):    the  CRD  applies  to  all  traders.  However, 
stakeholders have mentioned the lack of detailed guidance as to how far information 
requirements  should  apply  to  traders  operating  via  e-marketplaces  or  online 
platforms  (who  is  responsible  for  information  requirements,  i.e.  the  online  platform 
or the third party provider). 

Example comments related to the sharing economy from the OPC 

 “Concerning  transactions  in  the  context  of  the  sharing  economy,  it  must  be  clear  to 
consumers whether they are concluding a contract with a consumer or a trader.” 

 “Sharing  platforms  and  sharing  economy  based  suppliers  tend  to  use  reputational 
feedback  mechanisms  to  improve  trust  between  suppliers  and  consumers  (reviews, 
trustmarks,  etc.).  However,  in  our  view,  those  monitoring  mechanisms  cannot  replace 
mandatory  consumer  regulation  in  a  case  where  a  sharing  economy  based  supplier  is 
doing frequent and wide-scale consumer business.” 

".....intermediary  businesses  should  continue  to  be  able  to  act  as  a  simple  exchange 
channel  between  private  individuals,  without  having  to  vouch  for  the  quality  of  the 
services provided by private suppliers." 

•  The  CRD  does  not  contain  obligations  for  online  platforms  to  inform  the  consumer 
about  the  criteria  they  use  for  the  (default)  ranking  of  information  they  present  to 
consumers, such as offers by competing third party suppliers.  

Enforcement authorities and ECCs consulted have noted that there are significant levels 
of  non-compliance  with  information  requirements  from  traders  with  regard  to  their 
obligations under the CRD when operating via online platforms and e-marketplaces. This 
view  was  shared  by  some  consumer  organisations  about  online  platforms,  particularly 
with  regard  to  the  sharing  economy  (where  many  non-professionals  provide  goods  or 
services without qualifying as traders under the CRD).  

161 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Online platforms and information requirements on traders 

There  remains  a  question  with  regard  to  who  is  responsible  for  information 
requirements:  is  it  the  online  platform  or  the  actual  service  provider?  And  moreover, 
who  is  the  consumer  accountable  to  in  the  event  of  withdrawal  (in  accordance  with 
Article 14)? 

As an example, when signing a contract with an online platform offering hire car services 
and signing up for fully comprehensive insurance, it is not uncommon that when picking 
up  the  vehicle  from  the  car  rental  company,  a  credit  card  deposit  is  taken  in  case  of 
accidental  damage.  Sometimes,  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  ultimate  service 
provider may differ from those  of the  online platform. Moreover, if any charge is levied 
following  the  car  hire,  the  consumer  faces  uncertainty  as  to  how  to  proceed  to  claim 
his/her  money  back  (must  he/she  claim  this  back  from  the  online  platform  provider  or 
the  car  rental  company  who  may  have  already  deducted  the  money).  This  creates 
uncertainty  for  consumers  that  frequently  do  not  know  how  to  proceed  in  case  of  a 
conflict  or  do  not  know  whether  the  platform  is  an  intermediary  or  the  real  service 
provider.  

Similarly,  stakeholders  have  raised  concerns  about  the  different  requirements  applying 
to online platforms acting on behalf of traders and those acting on behalf on individuals 
or  both,  say  for  instance  in  the  case  of  hotels  and  platforms  such  as  Air  B&B,  where 
many  individuals  might  offer  their  private  properties  for  accommodation  purposes  in 
addition to professional traders. According to one trade association, there are significant 
asymmetries  between  the  information  requirements  set  on  professional  versus  those 
that  apply  to  non-professionals  (currently  particularly  topical  in  the  sharing  economy 
context).  

The EESC’s report notes: 

It should be  clarified whether the CRD applies to contracts with online platforms 
which  can  be  both  the  seller  and  the  buyer  (e.g.  Airbnb  where  the  owner  of  an 
apartment  can  be  considered  as  both  a  capital  owner  as  well  as  a  worker). 
Currently  platforms  often  exclude  all  their  obligations  under  the  Terms  and 
Conditions  and  the  CRD  only  governs  the  direct  relationship  between  the  trader 
and consumer. 

As  regards  other  platforms  such  as  free  online  services  there  are  also  articles  in  the 
press  with  regard  to  consumers  complaining  directly  to  social  media  providers  about 
frequent  changes  in  terms  and  conditions  in  respect  of  privacy  aspects  and  the  use  of 
data by free online services.  At present, the trend is for consumers to complain directly, 
however,  since  they  do  not  feel  they  have  the  right  to  complain  to  an  ECC  or  national 
consumer  authority  under  EU  consumer  and  marketing law unless  they  have  paid  for  a 
good  or  service.  This  may  suggest  that  free  online  platforms  such  as  social  media  and 
storage services are included within the scope of the CRD.  

Stakeholders were asked about the use of free online services and consumer protection 
in  the  survey.  Around  81%  of  consumers  responding  to  the  online  survey  use  social 
media and around 52% use free cloud services. Consultation has revealed that the level 
of  information  provided  about  these  services  is  however  low.  Nearly  half  of  the 
respondents noted that they did not receive very much information about these services 
or they received no information at all.  

162 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 6-4: Consumers: Use of free-online services (Q3) 

Q3 Do you use free online services such as … (N = 348)

Social media (347)

81%

17%

Free cloud services (340)

52%

44%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes

No

Don’t know

Prefer not to answer

Stakeholders were asked about the following changes to the scope of the CRD in relation 
to online platforms: 

•  Changes  to  the  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  free  online  services: 
before  subscribing  to  a  free  online  service  (such  as  social  media  e.g.  Facebook, 
Twitter etc. or cloud storage of pictures, movies), should the consumer receive all the 
relevant  information  about  such  a  free  service  contract  –  the  same  as  for  a  paid 
service contract? 

•  Changes  to  the  information  requirements  for  search  engines  and  online  platforms: 
When  using  an  online  platform  to  search  for  information  or  a  product,  should  the 
consumer  be  informed  about  the  ranking  criteria  that  the  platform  uses  when 
presenting the results? 

•  Changes to the RoW: When subscribing to a free online service (such as social media 
e.g.  Facebook,  Twitter  etc.  or  cloud  storage  of  pictures,  movies),  should  the 
consumer  have  a  RoW  from  such  a  free  service  contract  within  14  days  from 
conclusion?  

The  views  of  national  competent  authorities  and  consumer  associations  are  depicted  in 
Figures 6-5  and 6-6. There is general support to  extend the scope  of the CRD to these 
services to ensure coherence and the same level of protection. 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  6-5:  National  competent  authorities’  views  on  additional  requirements 
for online platforms  

Q31 To what extent would the following EU consumer protection rules 
if fully harmonised at EU level be beneficial for increasing trust of 
consumers? (N=40)

Before subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should receive the same information as…

When subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should have a RoW from such a free service…

When using an online platform to search for
information or a product, the consumer should
be informed about the ranking criteria that the…

19

12

2

5

14

13

1

10

20

9

2

9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Very beneficial for consumers

Rather beneficial for consumers

Rather not beneficial for consumers Not beneficial at all for consumers

No opinion / don't know

Figure  6-6:  Consumer  associations’  views  on  additional  requirement  for  online 
platforms 

Q19 To what extent would the following EU consumer protection 
rules - if fully harmonised at EU level - be beneficial for increasing 
trust of consumers? (N = 24)

Before subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should receive the same information as…

When subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should have a RoW from such a free service…

When using an online platform to search for
information or a product, the consumer should
be informed about the ranking criteria that the…

15

4

2

1 2

11

6

1

4

14

6

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Very beneficial for consumers

Rather beneficial for consumers

Rather not beneficial for consumers Not beneficial at all for consumers

No opinion / don't know

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

ECC also thought that these measures would be beneficial for consumers, as depicted in 
Figure 6-7.  

Figure 6-7: ECCs’ views on additional requirement for online platforms 

Q11 To what extent would the following EU consumer protection 
rules - if fully harmonised at EU level - be beneficial for increasing 
trust of consumers? (N = 26)

Before subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should receive the same information as…
When subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should have a RoW from such a free service…
When using an online platform to search for
information or a product, the consumer should
be informed about the ranking criteria that the…

13

11

9

1

3

9

2

4

14

9

2 1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Very beneficial for consumers

Rather beneficial for consumers

Rather not beneficial for consumers Not beneficial at all for consumers

No opinion / don't know

Trade  associations’  views  with  regard  to  free  online  services  were  more  mixed,  with 
roughly  the  same  percentages  thinking  that  this  would  be  rather  beneficial  and  not 
beneficial  for  consumers  (Figure  6-8).  Some  of  their  responses  are  given  below.  The 
main obstacle to further regulation is that  it can stifle innovation but some agreed that 
the level of protection should be the same. 

Figure  6-8:  Trade  associations’  views  on  additional  requirement  for  online 
platforms 

Q19 To what extent would the following EU consumer protection rules 
- if fully harmonised at EU level - be beneficial for increasing trust of 
consumers? (N = 23)

Before subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should receive the same information as…

2

6

When subscribing for a free on-line service, such
as social media or cloud services, the consumer
should have a RoW from such a free service…

8

8

7

2

5

1

6

When using an online platform to search for
information or a product, the consumer should be
informed about the ranking criteria that the…

1

8

5

1

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very beneficial for consumers

Rather beneficial for consumers

Rather not beneficial for consumers Not beneficial at all for consumers

No opinion / don't know

165 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Trade Associations' views 

As elaborated above, consumers should rely on equal protection standards, irrespective 
of whether the commercial service remunerates money or other kind of remuneration…   

Transparency  of  ranking  criteria  is  important.  Equally  important  is  that  these 
requirements are easy-to-understand and come in conjunction with a general obligation 
for non-discrimination.… 

providing  information  on  ranking  may  act  against  the  commercial  sensitivity  of 
information for traders whereas additional requirements on free online service may stifle 
innovation. 

The  creation  of  new  or  increased  legal  information  requirements  or  RoW  for  online 
services which are offered without payment, would create obstacles in the development 
of new services. It would hinder the flexibility in the development of these free services  
and it might even lead to a reduction of free offers  

Many services provide this information anyway whether or not the service if free and is 
a good thing but insisting this is provided may be a burden to business as it is likely the 
consumer  would  not  read  this  information  as  it  is  a  free  service  so  they  see  it  as 
irrelevant.  

Free  online  services  are  currently  de  facto  delivering  lots  of  information  and  offering 
easy ways to quit service due to competitive reasons - consumer regulation not needed.  

There  are  reasonable  doubts  that  making  things  more  and  more  difficult/complicated 
will  be  beneficial  for  consumers.  Transparency  with  regard  to  online  platforms  is  an 
important aspect. 

In  May  2016  the  EC  launched  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  role  of  online 
platforms and adopted a Communication on Platforms. According to the Communication, 
online platforms are subject to existing EU rules in areas such as competition, consumer 
protection,  protection  of  personal  data  and  the  single  market  freedoms.  The 
Communication  also  notes  that  effective  enforcement  is  crucial.  Among  the  general 
principles  highlighted  are:  transparency  and  fairness  for  maintaining  user  trust. 
However, it is important again to strike the right balance between users and businesses, 
as  the  platform  economy  presents  major  innovation  opportunities  for  European  start-
ups,  as  well  as  for  established  market  operators  to  develop  new  business  models, 
products and services.  

COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT, 
THE  COUNCIL,  THE  EUROPEAN  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE  AND  THE 
COMMITTEE  OF  THE  REGIONS  Online  Platforms  and  the  Digital  Single  Market 
Opportunities and Challenges for Europe 

A  2016  Eurobarometer  survey  on  online  platforms  showed  that  72%  of  responding 
consumers were concerned about the data collected about them or their activities. 72% 
also  considered  that  online  platforms  should  be  regulated  to  limit  the  extent  to  which 
they display different results to users based on the data collected about their activities. 
At  the  same  time,  56%  of  responding  consumers  indicated  that  they  did  not  read  the 
terms and conditions of online platforms.  

Over 75% of  respondents among the general public consider that more transparency is 
needed,  in  particular  on  how  platform  remuneration  influences  the  listing  of  search 
engine  results,  on  identification  of  the  actual  supplier  of  services  or  products,  and  on 
possible misleading practices including fake reviews.  

Source: CEC (2016) 

166 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In addition, in June 201696 the EC adopted a Communication on a European agenda for 
the collaborative economy and a staff working document on guidance on implementation 
of  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  (UCPD)  in  May,  both  of  which  provide 
guidance  on  how  to  apply  EU  consumer  and  marketing  law  in  the  sharing  economy 
context.   The findings of the EESC suggest changes to the definition of consumer in the 
light of the sharing economy.  

The CRD – Future proof 

An updated CRD must be clear in identifying the beneficiaries of consumer rights. Finally, 
due  to  developments  in  the  area  of  e-commerce,  the  current  definition  of  the  average 
consumer  is  out  of  date  and  too  demanding  on  the  consumer.  A  better  distinction  of 
consumers  and  professional  is  needed  when  it  comes  to  online  platforms  (Blablacar, 
Airbnb). 

Source: EESC (2017) 

  Relevance  of  specific  information  requirements  and  possible  need  for  a 

model form  

The  evaluation  is  also  aimed  at  assessing  the  relevance  of  specific  requirements,  in 
particular the pre-contractual information requirements and the RoW, and whether there 
is  the  possibility  of  simplifying  the  rules  without  endangering  the  achievement  of  the 
goals.  

With regard to pre-contractual requirements, the different sources of information for this 
evaluation  study  (including  the  findings  from  the  Consumer  Summit)  have  questioned 
the  added  value  of  pre-contractual  information  requirements  as  they  currently  stand  in 
the  CRD.    It  has  been  suggested  during  the  interviews  that  the  pre-contractual 
requirements  should  be  reduced  and/or  simplified,  to  the  benefit  of  both  traders  and 
consumers.    The  EESC  report  further  suggested  simplifying  information  requirements, 
focusing on quality rather than quantity. It notes that  one  solution would be to provide 
that references to websites where all information is accessible.    Stakeholders attending 
the Consumer Summit also agreed that pre-contractual information requirements should 
always be included and easy to find on traders’ websites.  

In  addition,  the  relevance  for  consumers  of  all  pre-contractual  information  has  been 
questioned.  As  noted  in  Section  6.2,  some  provisions  such  as  the  total  price  and  the 
characteristics  of  the  product  when  making  purchases  of  digital  content  are  more 
relevant  to  consumers  than  others  (such  as  information  on  complaints  policy).  One 
possible solution is to use icons or pictograms so consumers can find the pre-contractual 
information easier to digest. The use of icons is suggested in the model form for digital 
content in the CRD guidance, in its Annex I.  

96   COM(2016)0356 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Annex  I  –  Model  for  the  display  of  consumer  information  about  online  digital 
products  

The  model  is  intended  both  to  provide  consumer  information  in  a  uniform  and 
comparable  manner  and  to  help  industry  comply  with  the  information  requirements 
under  the  Directive  for  digital  products.  Specifically,  the  model  provides  one  way  for 
traders  to  give  the  necessary  pre-contractual  information  about  a  digital  product  in 
accordance with Article 8(2) and (4) of the Directive (discussed above in Chapter 5). It 
does not restrict the trader's right to provide the required information in another legally 
compliant form. 

Traders  should  be  encouraged  to  use  the  information  categories  with  their  icons,  the 
table-like  display,  and  the  order  of  the  information  items  as  shown  in  the  following 
examples. Other graphical elements, such as font or colours, can be adapted by traders 
to their selling environment. 

The  online  survey  asked  stakeholders  about  their  view  on  whether  pre-contractual 
information  requirements  could  be  simplified  by  using  a  uniform  easy  graphical  model 
with  icons.  40%  of  consumers  agreed  that  the  presentation  of  pre-contractual 
information in graphic form would be very useful. 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  6-9:  Consumers’  views  on  the  use  of  a  graphical  model  with  icons  for 
pre-contractual information 

Q21 Do you agree that the presentation of pre-contractual 
information to consumers should be simplified by applying 
a uniform easy graphical model using icons or pictograms  
(N = 202)

Consumers

40%

36%

15%

9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes, very useful

Only moderately useful

Not very useful

Don’t know

Although traders advocated the simplification of pre-contractual information, the view of 
traders and trade associations on a uniform graphical form with icons differed from that 
of consumers and their associations.  32% of the trade associations agreed to the use of 
non-binding  icon  model  (note  that  the  total  number  is  10  as  22  trade  associations 
responded to this question), 46% disagreed with the use of a graphical model with icons.  
Traders however were  more in favour  of the icon model with views divided on  whether 
this should be binding or not.  

Figure  6-10:  Trade  associations’  views  on  the  use  of  a  graphical  model  with 
icons 

Do you agree that the presentation of pre-contractual information to 
consumers should be simplified by applying a uniform easy graphical 
model using icons or pictograms 

Traders Q21 (N = 155)

Traders associations Q20 (N = 21)

23%

29%

23%

25%

17%

0

24%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Agree, model should be binding

Agree, model should be non-binding

Neutral (nor agree or disagree)

Disagree

Don’t know

The  views  of  the  national  competent  authorities,  the  consumer  associations  and  the 
ECCs on the use of a uniform graphical model with icons are depicted in the next Figure.  

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  6-11:  Views  on  the  use  of  a  graphical  model  with  icons  for  pre-
contractual information 

Do you agree that the presentation of pre-contractual information to 
consumers should be simplified by applying a uniform easy graphical 
model using icons or pictograms 

Consumer associations Q20 (N = 22)

National Competent Authorities Q32 (N = 54)

10

7

European Consumer Centres Q12 (N = 28)

7

7

5

1

4

2

5

15

10

23

2

Agree, model should be binding

Agree, model should be non-binding

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Neutral (nor agree or disagree)

Disagree

Don’t know

The  consumers’  representatives  and  ECCs  tend  to  agree  that  the  model  should  be 
binding; most of the national competent authorities disagreed with this recommendation. 

The  finding  of  the  behavioural  experiment  seem  to  suggest  that  there  may  little  added 
value from presenting pre-contractual information in the form of icons. The behavioural 
experiment  examined  consumer  understanding  and  the  use  of  pre-contractual 
information  for  products  in  two  sectors:  the  digital  content  sector  and  e-commerce  of 
ICT97  goods.    The  products  were  smartphones  and  streaming  content  (movies).  The 
study  findings98  concluded  that  the  presence  of  icons  hardly  seems  to  affect  the  use  of 
pre-contractual  information.  Thus,  it  did  not  seem  to  matter  much  whether  the  CRD 
items  were  presented  with  or  without  icons.  However,  the  presence  of  icons  does 
influence respondents’  understanding of CRD items. When icons were present, the CRD 
information  was  understood  less  well  compared  to  when  no  icons  were  present.  Thus, 
adding  icons  did  not  seem  to  facilitate  understanding  of  the  information  and  for  some 
information  items  even  lowers  understanding.    There  may  thus  be  little  added  value  in 
using icons. Support for a binding model also varies among stakeholders consulted under 
this study.  

A  key  finding  from  the  European  Consumer  Summit  was  that  whilst  the  possible  future 
use of a model form to communicate required information to consumers was welcomed, 
there was a consensus that this should be voluntary only, since some written information 
is still required; 69% of respondents were in favour of including graphical elements (e.g. 
icons) in such model. 

Evidence  from  the  survey  and  the  sweeps  also  suggest  that  the  withdrawal  form  is  not 
being  used  as  much  as  it  was  intended.  The  added  value  of  the  withdrawal  form 
therefore  is  less  than  certain  at  this  time.  However,  enforcement  actions  have  been 
carried  out  by  the  national  authorities  as  a  result  of  the  recent  EU  CRD  sweep;  so 
impacts in this regard are expected to be more positive in the near future.  

97   Information and communications technology. 
98   The  final  findings  are  expected  to  be  available  on  time  for  their  inclusion  in  the  Final  Report  of  this 

evaluation study.  

170 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

  Summary of findings on relevance 

Although there is already a high degree of approximation as a result of the CRD (refer to 
legal map in Section 2), the CRD’s objective of proper functioning of the internal market 
by approximating certain aspects of MS’s laws is still relevant. This is mainly due to two 
reasons: 

•  Distance and off-premises trade is only expected to increase in the future. As recent 
statistics  suggest,  there  has  been  an  increase  in  the  %  of  people  buying  over  the 
internet.  This  trend  is  only  expected  to  continue  in  the  future  which  reinforces  the 
need to ensure a high level of consumer protection in the internal market; and   

•  The  CRD  provides  a  framework  through  a  full  harmonisation  approach  that 
companies could use to increase business opportunities in other MS other than their 
own;  thus  reducing  the  costs  of  meeting  other  MS’  regulation  when  trading  cross-
border.  

Stakeholders  responding to the survey and in  our interviews have thus  recognised that 
the CRD is, overall, still relevant in terms of promoting the growth and development of 
B2C  e-commerce.  From  an  internal  market  perspective,  the  CRD  is  seen  as  crucial  to 
ensure  protection  for  cross-border  online  purchases  of  goods,  services  and  digital 
content. 

The fact that the Directive covers digital content for the first time is especially relevant 
from the point of view of pursuing the objectives in the DSM Strategy which was adopted 
in 2015. The Directive was recognised as being particularly relevant in the context of the 
launch of the DSM Strategy in 2015.  However, the increased use of social media by both 
traders  and  consumers  has  highlighted  some  gaps  in  ensuring  consumer  protection. 
Gaps  have  been  identified  by  stakeholders  with  particular  mention  of  free  trials,  free 
online services and digital content that need addressing. 

There  was  recognition  among  some  consumer  associations  and  national  authorities 
interviewed  however  that  free  services  should  be  covered  by  the  CRD.  The  rationale 
given was that social media and "free" digital content and services are markets that are 
developing rapidly and increasingly being used by traders, including rogue traders. Thus, 
it  is  important  to  extend  rights  to  these  areas  even  if  no  payment  is  made  to  provide 
consumers with adequate protection.  It is however  equally important to strike the right 
balance not to stifle innovation and the competitiveness of enterprises.  There is scope to 
address these gaps under the DSM Strategy and the CRD working in coordination. 

On  the  other  hand,  although  consultation  under  this  study  has  supported  the  use  of  a 
graphical model with icons for presenting the pre-contractual information, the findings of 
the  behavioural  experiment  seem  to  suggest  very  little  added  value  in  terms  of  adding 
icons  and  their  understanding.  Thus,  it  can’t  be  recommended  that  the  use  of  model 
forms  with  icons  is  made  compulsory  but  there  may  be  merits  in  promoting  it  on  a 
voluntary  basis  for  specific  sectors  and  product  categories,  similar  to  the  present 
suggestions given in the CRD guidance. Perhaps, a possibility is to include this under the 
self and co-regulation advocated by traders,  owing that traders appear not to object to 
the use of graphical models (as reflected in the survey responses).  

The  following  table  summarises  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  with  regard  to  the 
relevance of the CRD. 

171 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 6-1:  Summary of findings on CRD and its relevance 

Key to rating: 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

To what extent have the 
(original) objectives proven 
to be appropriate for the 
intervention in question? 

++/+++: According to the legal map presented in Section 
2 MS’s regulatory frameworks have been harmonised and 
they  are  no  longer  a  barrier  to  traders  for  conducting 
cross-border activities.   

How  well  do  the  (original) 
objectives  (still)  correspond 
to the needs within the EU? 

How  well  adapted  is  the 
intervention  to  subsequent 
technological  or  scientific 
advances?  

How  relevant 
intervention to EU citizens? 

is  the  EU 

Is  there  a  possibility  of 
simplifying  the  Consumer 
Rights  Directive’s  rules  and 
their  effects  on  the  entire 
EU consumer and marketing 
regulatory  framework  and 
of  reducing  the  burden  on 
without 
businesses 
endangering 
the 
achievement of the goals of 
Directive 2011/83/EU? 

+/++:  Generally,  stakeholders  agree  that  the  objectives 
are still highly relevant, as there needs to be    a common 
framework  for  the  different  contracts,  but  concerns  have 
been  raised  with  regard  to  free  trials  and  online  services 
as well as gaps in protection for digital content.  

-/0: The increased use of social media by both traders and 
consumers  has  highlighted  some  gaps 
in  ensuring 
consumer  protection.  Consultation  has  highlighted  that 
traders  using  social  media  sometimes  fall  short  of 
compliance.  The  Directive  falls  short  to  technological  or 
scientific advances; for  instance there is legal uncertainty 
with  regard  to  the  regulatory  framework  applicable  to 
online platforms.  

+:  as  above  (the  increase  in  the  use  of  social  media  has 
made the CRD slightly less effective in ensuring consumer 
protection,  according  to  consultees).  This  highlight  the 
importance  of  EU  intervention  in  order  to  strike  the  right 
balance  between  consumers  protection  but  also  not  to 
stifle  innovation  and  the  competitiveness  of  enterprises. 
There  is  scope  to  address  these  gaps  under  the  DSM 
Strategy and the CRD working in coordination. 

+:  main  issue  raised  by  interviewees  relates  to  the  pre-
contractual  information  requirements  and  the  need  for 
simplification.  The  merits  of  setting  a  binding  system  for 
graphical model using icons is not warranted on the basis 
of  consumer  understanding  and  use  of  pre-contractual 
information  but  these  could  be  promoted  on  a  voluntary 
basis.  

172 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

7  Added Value of the CRD and its Implementation 

  Overview of section 

The  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  states  that  consumer 
protection issues are a shared competence of the EU and the MS. Once EU legislation in 
this  domain  has  been  drawn  up,  adopted  and  has  come  into  force,  it  is  then  the 
responsibility  of  the  MS  to  implement  EU  legislation,  as  transposed  into  national  laws, 
and to effectively enforce the rules. 

Under  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  (Article  5  Treaty  on  European  Union),  the  EU  should 
only  act  when  the  objectives  can  be  better  achieved  by  Union  action  rather  than  by 
potentially  varying  action  by  MS.  It  requires  consideration  of  the  value  and 
improvements which are caused by the EU rather than another party taking action. 

The  assessment  of  EU-added  value  has  examined  the  extent  to  which  changes  can 
reasonably  be  argued  to  be  due  to  EU  intervention,  rather  than  any  other  factors.    In 
both cases, European added value may be the results of different factors:  strengthened 
coordination, greater legal certainty for traders and consumers within the context of the 
internal  market,  and  increased  consumer  protection  on  a  more  harmonised  basis,  the 
extent  of  effectiveness  of  the  CRD  in  terms  of  its  regulatory  approach  (maximum 
harmonisation), complementarities, etc.  

The evaluation questions on added value are set out in the following box. 

•  What is the additional value resulting from Directive 2011/83/EU, compared to what 

could have been achieved through MS legislation at national and/or regional levels?     

•  What has been the EU added value of areas such as pre-contractual information 

requirements and the right of withdrawal (including the use of a standard withdrawal 
form and the right to return used goods)? 

The  survey  included  a  question  with  regard  to  the  added  value  of  the  CRD.    The  CRD 
follows  the  principles  of  subsidiary  in  that it  allows  MS  a  number  of  regulatory  options, 
as  described  in  Section  2.3.    Only  a  few  MS  have  however  taken  up  these  choices  in 
respect  of  a  limited  number  of  sub-Articles  within  the  CRD.  Stakeholders  that 
participated  in  this  study  have  been  given  a  chance  to  provide  their  opinions  on  the 
impacts of these regulatory options in order to assess whether they have had any added 
value. 

  View of stakeholders on added value 

To  answer  the  first  evaluation  question,  national  competent  authorities  were  asked 
specifically about the added value of the CRD. Their responses are depicted in Figure 7-
1.    As  can  be  seen,  43%  of  competent  authorities  viewed  there  as  being  significant 
added  value  from  the  Directive  and  another  41%  saw  moderate  value  added  in  the 
intervention.  None  of  the  competent  authorities  responding  viewed  there  as  being  “no 
added value” from the CRD. 

Comments  indicated  that  uniform  and  harmonised  rules  on  consumer  rights  across 
Europe was the key area of added value. This has led to added value for traders in the 
form  of increased  cross-border sales, access to a wider market, greater legal certainty, 
and  compliance  cost  reductions;  it  has  also  led  to  benefits  for  consumers  such  as 
increased  buying  confidence,  equal  treatment,  greater  legal  certainty,  more  choice  and 

173 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

lower prices. These benefits suggests that the Directive has added value.  In addition to 
these  areas,  it  was  also  commented  that  the  CRD  has  helped  to  strengthen  the 
enforcement  of  consumer  rights  and  the  handling  of  cross-border  complaints  and 
infringements. 

Figure  7-1:  National  competent  authorities’  views  on  added  value  of  the    CRD  
(Q 29) 

Q29 What is the additional value resulting from Directive 2011/83/EU 
compared to what could have been achieved by individual EU Member 
States at national and/or regional levels determining their own consumer 
protection  rules? (N = 37)

16

15

2

4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Significant added value

Moderate added value

Don’t know

No opinion

A small number of national competent authorities stated that arrangements or rules for 
consumer protection already existed or would have been implemented had the CRD not 
been  adopted.    The  grey  box  below  shows  a  sample  of  comments  made  by  national 
competent authorities. 

Free  text  from  National  Competent  Authority  survey  Q  29:  What  is  the 
additional  value  resulting  from  Directive  2011/83/EU  compared  to  what  could 
have been achieved by individual EU Member States at national and/or regional 
levels  determining  their  own  consumer  protection  rules  relating  to  purchasing 
goods, services and digital content? 

A European set of rules applicable to all the EU member states: easier for traders, easier 
for consumers (same period of withdrawal, information, confirmation of contracts, etc.) 

The  added  value  is  related  mainly  to  cross-border  transactions.  Harmonised  rules  in  all 
member  states  make  consumers  more  confident  when  purchasing  online  and  make  it 
easier for traders to offer goods and services cross-border. 

Promoting  intra-Community  trade  and  the  provision  of  services,  providing  greater  legal 
certainty for traders. 

The additional value is the uniformity on information and withdrawal.  Equal treatment of 
consumers  throughout  the  community.    No  burden  on  consumers  to  research  different 
rights  if  buying  from  other  member  state  websites.    Uniformity  is  also  important  for 
traders.    The  same  compliance  requirements  across  all  their  businesses  within  the 
community  means  reduced  compliance  costs.  The  more  markets  the  trader  operates  in 
the  greater  the  cost  saving  and  increased  exposure  to  business.  Increases  consumer 
confidence in engaging in cross-border distance contracts. 

The  CRD  harmonised  only  certain  areas  of  consumer  protection  rules.  The  existing 
consumer legislation across the EU is still fragmented and therefore complicated and full 
harmonisation could be in some cases helpful. Fully harmonised rules may increase legal 
certainty  for  both  consumers  and  traders  across  the  EU,  but  only  those  rules,  that  are 
essential  for  cross-border  trading.  The  purpose  of  the  said  directive  is  to  mainly 
contribute to the proper functioning of EU  market; therefore the full harmonization was 

174 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

necessary  to  reach  this  goal.  Moreover,  there  is  another  benefit  in  the  form  of  better 
enforcement of consumer rights across the EU. 

The  following  word  cloud99  shows  the  words  most  frequently  used  by  the  competent 
authorities  in  their  comments.  The  figure  illustrates  how  added  value  is  understood  in 
the context of cross-border trade and harmonisation.  Of note too are the RoW and legal 
certainty for distance contracts. 

Figure  7-2:  Most  frequently  used  word  by  national  competent  authorities  in 
relation to added value   

Using  word  trees  generated  from  the  most  frequently  used  words  (see  example  of  a 
word tree in the figure  below), it was possible to  explore the use of a word in context, 
and therefore to identify any key themes associated with that word.   

99   The  fifty most  frequently  used words  were generated  using  a  ‘word frequency’  search  in  NVivo,  and  were 

subsequently formed into a word cloud using NVivo’s ‘word cloud’ function. 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure 7-3: Example of a word tree for ‘border’ 

The word cloud analysis also allows the most frequently used words to be linked with the 
number  of  themes  generated.  A  summary  is  provided  in  the  box  below.  This  analysis 
supports  the  idea  that  the  CRD  increases  the  volume  of  cross-border  transactions,  by 
strengthening  trust  both  among  and  between  consumers  and  traders.  In  addition, 
according to some stakeholders, a maximum harmonisation approach has been helpful in 
strengthening cross-border enforcement of provisions in EU consumer rights legislation, 
with  an  improvement  due  to  CRD  implementation  compared  with  the  predecessor 
legislation. 

Examples  of  stakeholder  comments  on  themes  identified  through  the  word 
cloud analysis 

‘Border’: 

•  Harmonisation facilitates the handling of cases and enforcement in the case of cross-

border complaints and infringements 

•  The uniform legal framework strengthens consumer trust with regard to cross-border 

trade 

Value: 

•  The added value of the Directive consists in improved cross-border transactions 

resulting from a more uniform legal framework 

Harmonized: 

•  Harmonised rules increase consumer trust when purchasing online 

•  Harmonised rules make it easier for traders to offer goods and services cross-border 

The  legal  mapping  provided  in  Section  2  concluded  that,  generally,  the  CRD  has 
increased  the  level  of  protection  across  the  EU  compared  with  predecessor  legislation, 
with very few exceptions. This would indicate that there has been added value from the 
adoption of the CRD as a whole across most MS as it seems unlikely that this would have 
been achieved by MS acting alone at national and/or regional level.   

The  CRD  also  takes  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  in  that  it  allows  MS  a  number  of 
regulatory  options,  as  described  in  Section  2.    Stakeholders  contributing  to  this  study 
have  been  given  a  chance  to  provide  their  opinions  on  the  impacts  of  these  regulatory 
options  in  order  to  assess  whether  they  have  had  any  added  value.  Consumer 
associations’ responses are shown in Figure 7-4. Almost half of the responding consumer 
associations  said  that  the  specific  requirements  applying  in  their  country  had  been 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

positive  (36%)  or  very  positive  (9%)  for  consumers.  Trade  associations’  views  were 
mixed  concerning  the  impacts  on  competitiveness  (see  Figure  7-5).  Specific  mention 
concerning the positive impacts was given to the confirmation of contracts concluded by 
telephone (Art. 8).  Other choices such as the exclusion based on value are not seen to 
be very positive by consumer associations.  

Figure 7-4: Consumer associations’ views on national requirements and impacts 
for consumers (Q 7) 

Q7 If specific requirements apply in your country as a result of national 
implementation of the CRD, how do you rate them for consumers?  (N = 22)

Total

2

8

2

1

2

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Don’t know/ No opinion Not applicable

Figure  7-5:  Traders’  associations’  views  on  national  requirements  and  impacts 
for traders (Q 16) 

Q16 If there are specific requirements that only apply in your country as a 
result of national implementation of the CRD, how do you rate them for 
traders’ competitiveness?  (N = 21)

Total

6

3

5

1

1

5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Very negative

Don’t know/No opinion Not applicable

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Free  text  from  Consumer  and  Trade  Association  survey  Q  7:    If  there  are 
specific  requirements  that  apply  in  your  country  as  a  result  of  national 
implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive, how positively or negatively 
do you rate them for consumers? 

France  has  maintained  protective  consumer  provisions  that  already  existed  in  its 
regulations  (for  example,  prohibition  of  payments  in  the  case  of  door-to-door  selling, 
specific rules for telephone sales and language requirements). It is imperative that these 
provisions be maintained. 

Requiring  written  confirmation  for  contracts  concluded  by  telephone  represents  more 
security  for  consumers  and  solves  the  problem  regarding  the  proof  whenever  the 
consumer has not concluded the contract. 

To require written confirmation for contracts concluded by telephone  - does not work in 
practice  (Lithuanian  experience);  Not  to  apply  a  simplified  information  regime  for  off-
premises  contracts  to  carry  out  repairs  or  maintenance  -  this  provision  applies  only  for 
orders of urgent/express services. 

In Austria there is an  exemption for off-premises transactions below € 50,  which is too 
high  in  some  cases.  Besides  there  is  a  possibility  that  this  limit  may  be  abused  by 
inventive  new  contract/business  models.      Concerning  contracts  to  carry  out  repairs  or 
maintenance  Austria  implemented  simplified  information  obligations.  This  provision  is 
rarely applicable in practice as consumers often do not know in advance the exact price 
they will have to pay (as the price depends on the volume of the repair or maintenance).   
Austria  implemented  the  requirement  of  a  written  confirmation  for  contracts  concluded 
by telephone which is good for  consumers as they are more aware  of  the conclusion of 
the contract. 

National  competent  authorities  were  also  asked  about  the  impacts  from  regulatory 
choices  on  both  consumers  and  traders.    Half  of  the  respondents  thought  that  the 
regulatory  choices  had  been  very  positive  or  positive  for  consumers.    For  traders,  the 
impacts  were  regarded  to  be  less  positive  and  28%  of  respondents  agreed  that  the 
impacts on traders from the regulatory choices had been negative.  The main reason for 
this  negative  impact  is  that  the  regulatory  choices  work  against  the  principles  of  full 
harmonisation.  

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  7-6:  National  competent  authorities’  views  on    national  provisions  and 
impacts on consumers and traders (Q28) 

Q28 If there are specific national provisions that have been applied in 
your country during national implementation, how positively or 
negatively do you rate the provisions in your country? (N = 34)

For consumers (34)

9

8

5

7

5

For traders (32)

2

4

9

4

9

4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Very positive

Positive

Neutral /no impact

Negative

Don’t know/ no opinion

Not applicable (no national-specific provisions apply)

  Summary of findings on added value 

The main added value from the Directive had been related to the reduction in the level of 
regulatory  fragmentation  in  respect  of  consumer  protection  legislation  for  distance  and 
off-premises  contracts  across  the  MS.  This  has  benefited  cross-border  trade  for  both 
traders and consumers. Our analysis and consultations suggest that overall, the CRD has 
added  value  to  the  level  of  consumer  protection  across  most  MS,  with  few  exceptions. 
This is not to say however that the  CRD  could not benefit from  further simplification in 
order  to  reduce  administrative  burdens  on  traders.  In  particular,  the  simplification  of 
pre-contractual information requirements has been recommended by some stakeholders 
and may merit further investigation by the Commission.  

The following table summarises the evaluation findings with regard to the added value of 
the CRD. 

Table 7-1:  Summary of findings on CRD and its added value 

Key to rating: 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

179 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table 7-1:  Summary of findings on CRD and its added value 

Key to rating: 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

--: moderate negative impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

---: significant negative impacts 

What is the additional value resulting 
from Directive 2011/83/EU, compared to 
what could have been achieved by MS at 
national and/or regional levels?     

++/+++: most of the MS increased their 
level of protection from implementation and it 
would have been unlikely that MS could have 
solved regulatory fragmentation in relation to 
consumer protection legislation for distance 
and off-premises contracts on their own.  

What has been the EU added value of 
areas such as pre-contractual 
information requirements and the right 
of withdrawal (including the use of a 
standard withdrawal form and the right 
to return used goods)? 

+/++: limited impact from the RoW form, 
according to the results of the mystery 
shopping and sweep but coordinated 
enforcement actions are being planned in the 
near future. Impacts in this regard are 
therefore expected to be more positive.  

180 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

8  Conclusions and recommendations 

  Summary of findings 

The  comparative  analysis  of  the  legislative  situation  pre-CRD  and  post-CRD  has 
highlighted  that,  for  many  of  the  key  provisions  of  the  CRD,  consumer  protection  has 
been  strengthened  in  most,  if  not  all,  MS.  This  is  because  there  was  either  no  such 
protection previously (e.g. for digital content and prohibiting default options on websites) 
or,  where  there  was  already  some  degree  of  protection,  legal  uncertainty  has  been 
reduced  through  more  detailed  wording  of  the  applicable  rules  (e.g.  on  delivery  and 
passing on the risk).   

An  examination  of  national  legislation  in  the  different  MS  prior  to  the  CRD’s 
implementation  has  shown  a  significant  degree  of  variation  in  the  rules  on  consumer 
protection  among  MS.  For  instance,  the  rules  on  delivery  varied,  as  did  the  periods  for 
the RoW. Thus, the CRD has reduced regulatory differences between MS and within the 
context  of  the  internal  market  and  a  maximum  harmonisation  approach,  has  increased 
regulatory  certainty  across  MS  for  traders  and  consumers  selling  and  buying  cross-
border. 

The previous Sections have also described stakeholders’ views on different aspects of the 
Directive  concerning  the  different  evaluation  criteria  of  coherence,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, added value and relevance.  

Based on a detailed assessment of the feedback from consumer and trade associations, 
the CRD was found to still be relevant as it provides consumers with increased protection 
and  buying  confidence,  especially  when  looking  to  purchase  goods  and  services  cross-
border.    It  also  affords  traders  the  opportunity  to  expand  their  market  through  cross-
border  sales  and  provides  a  level  playing  field  within  Europe.    However,  some  small 
traders/companies find the costs of meeting some of the requirements of the directive to 
be  burdensome.  These  costs  stem  from  provisions  such  as  pre-contractual  information 
requirements  and  the  consumers  exercising  their  RoW  (in  relation  to  distance  and  off-
premises contracts). 40% of the consumers responding to the online survey have availed 
their  RoW  but  some  sectors  appear  to  be  more  affected  by  returns  than  others  (e.g. 
textiles). Traders and their associations were concerned about consumers’ RoW for used 
goods and requested legislative changes.  

As noted in Section 4, when consumers were asked about the level of protection, a high 
percentage  indicated  that  this  was  moderate  to  high,  both  domestically  and  cross-
border.  One  of  the  main  indicators  of  whether  the  Directive  has  been  effective  in 
ensuring  protection  and  increasing  trust  is  to  see  whether  the  consumers  have 
experienced  any  difficulties  in  their  purchasing  experiences  and/or  when  using  free 
online  services.  Only  25%  of  consumers  noted  that  they  had  experienced  difficulties 
(from  a  total  of  255  responses).  Two  third  of  these  consumers  did  complain  about  the 
problem, mostly to the trader but the other third did nothing about it. The main reasons 
being: 

•  The sums involved were not too high; 

•  They were not sure about their rights as a consumer; and 

•  They did not know where to complain. 

The last two highlight issues with awareness, which is one of the main reasons hindering 
the effectiveness  of the CRD (as highlighted in  Section 4). The tests  conducted showed 
that  although  a  high  percentage  of  respondents  are  aware  of  their  RoW,  their  level  of 

181 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

awareness  about  other  provisions,  such  as  the  contractual  remedy  for  inertia  selling, 
appears to be lower.  

Figure 8-1: Consumers – reasons for not making a complaint (Q15) 

Q15 Why did you not make a complaint about this problem? (N = 28)

Unlikely to get a satisfactory solution to the…

Sums involved were too small (13)

Did not know how or where to complain (9)

Were not sure of your rights as a consumer (10)

Thought it would take too long (9)

13

9

9

9

10

Tried to complain about other problems in the…

7

Thought complaining would lead to…

3

Don’t know (1)

1

Other (5)

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

A  more  detailed  summary  of  the  findings  on  the  different  CRD  provisions  is  provided 
below. 

  Summary of provisions found the most effective in protecting consumers 

From the desk research and stakeholder consultations, it can be concluded that the CRD 
is  seen  as  effective  in  ensuring  consumer  protection.  The  most  effective  provisions 
according  to  consumers  and  representative  associations  are  the  provision  of  pre-
contractual  information  and  the  RoW  (and  related  articles).  A  number  of  issues  can  be 
highlighted with regard to the different provisions. These are described below. 

8.2.2  Pre-contractual information requirements (Art. 5 & 6) 

Although  there  are  benefits  in  receiving  information  about  the  product,  service  and 
digital content (Art. 5 and 6), traders and their representative associations advocate the 
simplification  of  pre-contractual  information  requirements,  and  streamlining  the 
requirements to avoid overlap with other Directives such as the UCPD. It has also been 
suggested  that  the  volume  of  information  provided  should  be  reduced  for  ease  of 
comprehension  by  consumers  or,  alternatively,  provided  at  different  stages  of  the 
process and/or varied according to the value of the sale.   

Another  option investigated  through this study is  whether the provision of icons setting 
out  relevant  key  pre-contractual  information  would  be  beneficial  for  consumers. 
However, the findings from the behavioural study seem to suggest that the benefits from 
using  icons  are  uncertain  whereas  the  stakeholders  consulted  for  this  evaluation  have 
shown  mixed  opinions.  40%  of  consumers  agreed  that  the  presentation  of  pre-
contractual information in graphic form would be useful. The view of consumer and trade 
associations was found to differ. At the European Consumer Summit,  45% of consumer 
associations thought that icons should be binding and another 22% agreed that a model 
with  icons  should  not  be  binding.  18%  of  consumer  representatives  did  not  agree  with 

182 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

the  use  of  icons.  31%  of  the  trade  associations  agreed  to  the  use  of  non-binding icons 
but 46% disagreed with the use of icons altogether.  One option may be to use icons on 
a sector by sector basis in a non-binding way. 

Last but not least, there appears to be legal uncertainty about the provisions applicable 
to  off-premises  contracts  stemming  from  different  interpretations  of  what  off-premises 
means.  This is despite the Guidance issued by the Commission in June 2014.  

8.2.3  Right of withdrawal (RoW) (Art. 9 and 16) 

Regarding  the  RoW  (Art.  9),  most  stakeholders  have  agreed  that  having  a  harmonised 
period  has  helped  in  reducing  legal  fragmentation.  The  added  value  from  the 
introduction  and  application  of  the  withdrawal  form  is  less  clear.  The  results  of  related 
studies  (sweeps  and  mystery  shopping)  show  that  withdrawal  forms  are  often  not 
provided.  However,  consumers  still  appear  to  be  exercising  their  RoW  as  they  are  not 
bound  to  use  the  withdrawal  form  (40%  of  consumers  responding  to  the  survey  have 
availed their RoW). 

Moreover,  the  interviews  have  shown  that  specific  sectors  are  still  faced  with  legal 
uncertainty with particular regard to the RoW and scope of its exceptions. These include: 

•  In  markets  subject  to  fluctuation  (Article  16  and  recital  49),  Section  3  of  this  report 
refers  to  the  heating  oil  distribution  sector  and  the  interpretation  of  the  CRD  in 
German courts that the oil distribution is not exempted from the RoW.  This exception 
has been reported to have detrimental impacts for traders in the sector and significant 
cost implications;  

•  Online  auction  houses  are  not  exempt  from  the  RoW;  but  hybrid  auction  houses 
where different bidding mechanisms such as face and distance  bidding are combined 
are exempt. This represents an uneven playing field within the same sector;  

•  Digital  content  rules,  in  particular  the  need  to  receive  express  consent  from  the 
consumers that he/she  loses the RoW, has led some traders to  skip this step  and to 
offer RoW regardless of whether the downloading or streaming has started which has 
had a negative impact on their operational costs; and  

•  Goods  made  to  the  consumer's  specifications  are  exempt  from  the  RoW,  but 
interpreting what constitutes a bespoke good was identified as a potential problem in 
some interviews conducted (DE, UK and SE). 

However,  not  all  of  the  exceptions  mentioned  in  Art.  16  were  considered  to  raise 
concerns  and  legal  uncertainty.  Exceptions  such  as  the  provision  of  accommodation 
other  than  for  residential  purpose  have  benefited  traders  and  benefits  have  apparently 
been passed on to consumers in the form of wider choice and discounts.  

8.2.4  Obligations on traders in the case of withdrawal (Art. 13) 

Generally the time to receive reimbursement when exercising the RoW has been reduced 
across  most  MS.  However,  traders  and  their  associations  report  costs  in  refunding  the 
amounts  within  14  days  of  the  consumer  informing  the  seller  of  their  intention  to 
withdraw  or  sending  the  product,  whichever  is  earliest.  According  to  traders,  they  risk 
receiving  products  that  have  diminished  in  value  after  they  have  provided  a  full  refund 
within  14  days  of  receiving  evidence  that  the  consumer  wishes  to  withdraw.  Moreover, 
there  is  uncertainty  about  how  to  calculate  the  diminished  value  as  well  as  serious 
concern on the negative impact on business competitiveness of the RoW for used goods 
(Article 14). 

183 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

8.2.5  Other CRD provisions 

Other CRD provisions such as inertia selling and passing on the risk (Art. 20) have  also 
been  considered  effective  in  ensuring  consumer  protection.  However,  some  of  the 
stakeholders’ concerns that have been raised include: 

•  Applicable  provisions  to  online  platforms  including  social  media  and  free  online 
services for storage. There is legal uncertainty as to the level of protection consumers 
are offered when using online platforms. Around 81% of consumers responding to the 
online survey use social media and around 52% use free cloud services. Consultation 
has revealed that the level of information provided about these services is low. Nearly 
half of the respondents noted that they did not receive very much information about 
these services or they received no information at all; and 

•  Fees  for the use  of means  of payments (Art.  19) and additional payments (Art. 22). 
The  ban  on  the  provision  of  pre-ticked  boxes  is  regarded  to  be  very  positive  by 
consumers  and  their  associations.  There  is  evidence  that  in  some  MS  some  charges 
for the use of means of payments are still being applied. Moreover, there is no clarity 
on  the  fees  that  are  being  borne  by  traders  in  order  to  assess  whether  fees  paid  by 
consumers are reasonable.  

  Summary of factors reducing effectiveness  

The main reasons provided in the responses on the lack of effectiveness include the lack 
of awareness  from  the  consumers’  side,  enforcement and implementation, and, in third 
place, the different MS implementations. In particular: 

•  A  lack  of  consumer  and  trader  awareness  and  understanding  of  the  CRD  provisions. 
Despite  efforts  by  the  EC  and  national  competent  authorities,  there  appears  to  be  a 
number of provisions where awareness is still low, these include exemptions from the 
RoW  and  inertia  selling.  However,  the  Directive  is  considered  to  be  a  fairly  new 
Directive (although based on two previous ones), thus the low level of awareness on 
new specific provisions is unsurprising.  

•  Compliance  by  traders,  with  particular  regard  to  specific  provisions.  Although  the 
overall level of compliance  with the CRD is  considered to be good, there are  specific 
provisions that traders appear to have more difficulties complying with.  These include 
providing  all  types  of  information  and  the  RoW,  and  in  particular  the  provision  of  a 
withdrawal  form.  National  competent  authorities  agreed  that  these  aspects  will 
require enforcement in the future. In addition, based on the analysis of the literature 
and consultation, compliance appears to be more of an issue for specific sectors, such 
as  telecommunications  and  energy  supply,  and  specific  contracts,  such  as  telephone 
and catalogue distance selling; and 

•  Enforcement: there are mixed views regarding the ability of competent authorities to 
enforce  the  CRD;  although  most  competent  authorities  are  engaged  in  joint  actions 
and  pre-enforcement  actions,  they  are  not  being  seen  as  particularly  effective.  
Moreover,  the  number  of  legal  cases  and  level  of  fines  vary  significantly  by  MS.  The 
different level of enforcement across MS may reduce the  effectiveness of the CRD in 
ensuring compliance when trading cross-border. 

184 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

  Conclusions of the evaluation of the CRD (Directive 2011/83/EU) 

In  general,  the  CRD  has  succeeded  in  increasing  consumer  protection,  particularly  for 
distance and off-premises contracts. The level of protection is however considered lower 
for  digital  content  than  for  goods  and  services.  Both  consumers  and  representative 
associations shared the view that the level of protection for digital content purchases is 
not as effective as for goods and services and this is due both to a lack of awareness and 
understanding but also because of the lack of compliance. Furthermore, 39% of national 
competent authorities responding to the questionnaire agreed that digital content related 
provisions would require enforcement and a few more thought these would be of concern 
when dealing with the RoW.   

The  CRD  guidance  clarifies  that  free  digital  content  contracts  are  covered  within  the 
CRD’s scope, since, contrary to the definition of sales and service contracts, the Directive 
does  not  mention  'payment'  for  the  supply  of  public  utilities  and  online  digital  content. 
Nevertheless, this is not explicitly mentioned or explained in the CRD, and might create 
some  legal  ambiguity.    Some  stakeholders  noted  that  the  new  legislative  proposals  on 
online goods and on digital content respectively100 explicitly include within the scope the 
provision of free digital content and free online subscription services by traders (paid for 
in  exchange  for  free  data).    It  is  important  that  these  new  proposals  and  the  CRD  are 
made consistent. 

Very  limited  information  has  been  obtained  on  the  level  of  costs  of  the  different 
provisions of the CRD, with some exceptions related to the costs of consumers exercising 
the RoW and returns. Similarly, benefits have been difficult to quantify.  

A  few  national  competent  authorities  reported  moderate  to  significant  costs  relating  to 
the  enforcement  of  the  CRD  (whilst  most  competent  authorities  reported  no  specific 
costs relating to its transposition). The level of compliance is generally regarded as being 
mixed, since the sweeps identified low levels of compliance in respect of online distance 
sellers101. In addition, some sectors such as electronic communication and energy sector 
appear to have  higher incidence of breaches of the provisions of the CRD,  based on an 
analysis  of  legal  cases  that  have  arisen  to  date  and  of  the  fines  issued  ).  Promoting 
higher  levels  of  awareness  about  the  obligations  of  traders,  strengthening  compliance 
levels and improving enforcement therefore appears to be a priority in some sectors.  

Most  of  the  costs  to  traders  stem  from  pre-contractual  information  requirements.  The 
views as to whether the costs exceeded the benefits were divided as well as  in relation 
to the impacts on competitiveness. The view of SMEs on impacts was similar to those of 
the  bigger  companies  but  impacts  appear  to  vary  significantly  by  sector.  According  to 
most traders, the CRD could benefit from further simplification  particularly in respect of 
pre-contractual information requirements in order to reduce administrative burdens. This 
has  been  recommended  by  some  stakeholders  and  may  merit  further  investigation  by 
the Commission, especially for low-value items.  Some stakeholders have also called for 
the  pre-contractual  information  requirements  between  the  UCPD  and  the  CRD  to  be 
streamlined. 

As  for  other  aspects  of  coherence,  consultation  undertaken  for  this  study  has  not 
revealed significant issues between the CRD and sector specific legislation.  

The main added value from the Directive had been related to the reduction in the level of 
regulatory fragmentation thus benefiting cross-border trade. Our analysis and the results 

100  See  COM/2015/0634  final  -  2015/0287  (COD),  Proposal  for  a  Directive  on  certain  aspects  concerning 
contracts  for  the  supply  of  digital  content  and  COM/2015/0635  final  -  2015/0288  (COD)  Proposal  for  a 
Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods 

101 With irregularities confirmed in 63% of the total cases. 

185 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

of  the  stakeholders  consultations  suggest  that  overall,  the  CRD  has  added  value  to  the 
level of consumer protection across most MS, with very few exceptions. Some provisions 
are noted to have added more value than others (RoW (high) vs withdrawal form (low)). 
Some  others  may  be  of  little  added  value  in  the  future  (Art.19  on  fees  for  the  use  of 
payments) due to on-going planned EU regulatory developments (e.g. the 2015 Payment 
Services  Directive  II,  whereby  all  credit  card  charges  will  be  prohibited  across  the  EU 
from 2018).   

Overall,  the  Directive’s  objectives  appear  to  be  still  relevant,  although  some  gaps  have 
been identified in relation to online platform and the shared economy. In this regard: 

•  Consumers are uncertain as to their rights when using online platforms and the level 

of consumer protection offered; and 

•  Compliance  tends  to  be  lower  for  online-platform  with  particular  regard  to 
requirements  such  as  information  on  traders  (which  prevent  consumers  from 
exercising  their  RoW  if  the  necessity  arose).  This  highlights  the  importance  of 
enforcement on specific provisions and services.  

There  is  scope  to  address  these  gaps  under  the  DSM  Strategy  and  the  CRD  working in 
coordination.  Moreover,  the  new  proposals  to  review  the  CPC  Regulation  may  ensure 
more effective and coherent enforcement of the CRD in the future.   

Table  8-1  presents  a  summary  of  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  under  the  different 
criterion. 

Table 8-1:  Summary of evaluation of CRD implementation  

Criteria 

Summary of evaluation 

Effectiveness 

in 

reducing 

regulatory 
+/+++:  The  Directive  has  succeeded 
fragmentation 
in  respect  of  distance  and  off-premises  contracts. 
Differences  in  MS  legislation  are  no  longer  seen  as  an  issue  by  most 
trade.  Although  consumer 
traders  when  conducting  cross-border 
protection  has  increased  overall,  there  are  still  some  provisions  where 
awareness is low (such as inertia selling). Other provisions are not being 
applied by traders as much, such as the provision of withdrawal forms or 
a  complete  set  of  information  about  the  trader  as  required  in  Art.  6(1) 
and  5(1).  Compliance  varies  according  to  the  sector  (e.g.  lower 
compliance 
in  sectors  such  as  telecommunications  and  energy). 
Enforcement  needs  to  be  focused  on  those  sectors  where  compliance 
levels  are  lower  and  on  those  provisions  where  instances  of  non-
compliance  were  found  to  be  more  common.  There  are  also  still 
divergences between MS with regard to enforcement, with divergent level 
of  penalties  which  may  compromise  effectiveness,  given  the  common 
approach inherent in a maximum harmonisation Directive. 

Efficiency 

--/++: Significant costs have been noted from having to modify websites 
and incorporate pre-contractual information. Views among traders were 
divided but impacts appear to vary by sector (more benefits were 
reported by traders selling goods than those trading services and digital 
content). The view of SMEs about the administrative costs and burdens 
were similar to those of bigger companies and especially relate to the 
costs of meeting pre-contractual information requirements and of 
consumers exercising the RoW (e.g. costs of reimbursing credit card 
charges, shipping costs).  The highest costs for national competent 
authorities in implementating the CRD are related to enforcement.  The 

186 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Criteria 

Summary of evaluation 

simplification of pre-contractual requirements could strengthen the 
effectiveness of the Directive from a trader perspective 

The benefits for consumers have been significant. 

-/++: Minor issues with regard to external coherence stem from pre-
contractual information requirements related to the UCPD. Coherence 
with sectoral Directives is considered to be strong (also due to the lex 
specialis principles under Art. 3(2)).  Due to the new proposals stemming 
from the DSM it is important that coherence is observed and current gaps 
addressed. 

++/+++: There is strong stakeholder support for the CRD, not only for 
protecting consumers’ rights but also from a jobs and growth perspective. 
The CRD was recognised as being particularly relevant in the context of 
the 2015 DSM Strategy. Gaps have been identified with particular regard 
to online-platforms, free online services and digital content.  

Coherence 

Relevance 

European 
Added  Value 
(EAV) 

+/+++: The Directive’s added value stems primarily from its maximum 
harmonisation approach. Common rules could by definition not be 
achieved through a national approach to consumer protection legislation 
for distance and off-premises contracts. Some provisions are noted to 
have more added value than others (e.g. common duration of the RoW 
(high) vs EU-wide standard withdrawal form (low)) .  

Key to rating (reflecting range in evaluation when more 
than one key) 

0: no noticeable impact 

+: small positive impacts 

++: moderate positive impacts 

+++: significant positive impacts 

-: small negative impacts 

--: moderate negative 
impacts 

---: significant negative 
impacts 

  Summary of recommendations 

Based on the evaluation, the following recommendations are made: 

•  To explore the scope for the simplification of pre-contractual information requirements 

and align these with others in the EU consumer acquis;  

•  To  update 

certain 

information 

reflect 
technological/market  developments,  e.g.  web-based  contact  forms  as  an  alternative 
to  a  trader’s  fax  number,  and/or  referencing  via  hyperlinks.  The  use  of  icons  to 
present pre-contractual information could be explored on a sector by sector basis but 
at  this  moment  it  is  not  recommended  to  apply  a  binding  model  for  all  sectors  to 
which the CRD applies; 

requirements 

to  better 

so  as 

•  To reconsider the appropriateness of the RoW for goods that consumers have already 
used and therefore have a diminished value (due to the difficulties in estimating and 
agreeing  the  value  between  traders  and  consumers  and  the  risk  of  traders  incurring 
losses due to used goods not being resaleable); 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

•  To  engage  in  sector-based  discussion  to  address  legal  uncertainty  affecting  specific 
sectors  with  regard  to  the  RoW  (e.g.  online  bidding  platforms,  digital  content 
provision, heating oil distribution);  

•  To clarify the rules applicable to online platforms and ensure that these are enforced 
effectively. There is general support among stakeholders as to the need to clarify the 
applicable  requirements,  with  particular  regard  to  pre-contractual  information 
requirements and RoW; 

•  To  continue  awareness-raising  campaigns  and/or  ensure  that  there  are  means  to 
facilitate these. It is suggested that information campaigns focus on those provisions 
of greatest interest to consumers and traders. For consumers these include RoW and 
its  exceptions,  provisions  on  digital  content  and  inertia  selling.  For  traders,  these 
include complying with pre-contractual information102; 

•  To ensure that national competent authorities have the resources available to conduct 
enforcement  activities  and  focus  on  specific  provisions,  such  as  the  provision  of 
information on traders  and/or the provision of withdrawal forms  so that RoW can be 
availed,  if  needed103.  On  the  other  hand,  the  new  proposal  to  review  the  CPC 
Regulation  may  ensure  more  effective  and  coherent  enforcement  of  the  CPD  across 
borders in the future; and 

•  There  may  be  scope  for  national  competent  authorities  to  increase  the  level  of 
penalties so that they are set at a level that can act as a deterrent for traders acting 
cross-border; further action or guidance at EU level may be needed to achieve more 
uniformity in the national approaches to penalties.   

102  A  best  practice  example  was  found  through  consultation  with  a  trade  association  that  provided  their 
members  with  a  template  compliant  with  all  pre-contractual  information  requirements  so  by  using  the 
template members could save time and resources rather than developing their own list from scratch.  

103  It is of note that 59% of consumers responding said that they had not been given access to a withdrawal 

form. 

188 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

References 

CEC  (2008):  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  proposal  for  a 
directive on consumer rights Impact Assessment Report 

CEC (2014): DG JUSTICE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT concerning Directive 2011/83/EU of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2011  on  consumer  rights, 
amending  Council  Directive  93/13/EEC  and  Directive  1999/44/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 
97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

CEC (2016):  Proposal for  a REGULATION  OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF  THE 
COUNCIL  on  addressing  geo-blocking  and  other  forms  of  discrimination  based  on 
customers'  nationality,  place  of  residence  or  place  of  establishment  within  the  internal 
market  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  and  Directive  2009/22/  Brussels, 
25.5.2016 COM(2016) 289 final 2016/0152 (COD) EC 

CEC  (2016):  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  REGIONS  Online  Platforms  and  the  Digital  Single  Market 
Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM/2016/0288 final 

CEC  (2016):  Consumer  Markets  Scoreboard  Making  markets  work  for  consumers,  2016 
EDITION. 

Civic  Consulting  (2016):  Study  to  support  the  Fitness  Check  of  EU  Consumer  Law, 
Scene-setting report Part 2 – Report on the open public consultation 

Coffey  and  Deloitte  (2016):  Evaluation  of  the  2014-16  consumer  rights  awareness 
campaign in 14 EU Member States, Final report, November 2016. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union  (2016):  PRESS  RELEASE  No  124/16, 
Luxembourg, 10 November 2016 Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-568/15 Zentrale 
zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main e.V. v comtech GmbH  

EESC (2017): Information Report, Consumer Rights Directive (evaluation), INT/795 

GfK  (2016):  Mystery  shopping  survey  on  territorial  restrictions  and  geo-blocking  in  the 
European Digital Single Market, Final Report, Study for DG Justice, May 2016. 

GfK  (2017):  CRD  Mystery  Shopping,  report  provided  by  the  EC  and  not  yet  publicly 
available, report provided by the EC and not yet publicly available.  

GfK  (2017):  Behavioural  Study,  Consumers’  understanding  and  use  of  pre-contractual 
information, report provided by the EC and not yet publicly available.  

Henning-Bodewig,  F.  (2016):    Distance  sales  of  heating  oil  and  the  consumer’s  right  of 
withdrawal  –  a  fair  balance?  Journal  of  European  Consumer  and  Market  Law,  Volume  5 
pp73-116. 

189 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Other sources of data: 

Information of CRD Sweep:  

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/sweeps/directive/index_en.htm 

Information on DSM: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-single-market 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/documents/roadmap_of_the_crd_evaluation.pdf 

190 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Annex 1: National implementation of CRD (country fiches) 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Austria 

In Austria, the Directive has been implemented into local legislation by the 
“Verbraucherrechte-Richtlinie-Umsetzungsgesetz” 
“Austrian  Act”) 
which came into force on 13 June 2014, applying to contracts concluded on 
or  after  that  date.  With  the  transposition  the  legislator  adopted  the 
Allgemeines  Bürgerliches  Gesetzbuch  (ABGB)  [General  Civil  Law  Code]  3 
and  the  Konsumentenschutzgesetz  (KSchG)  [Consumer  Protection  Law]  4 
and additionally created a new law, the Fern- und Auswärtsgeschäftegesetz 
(FAGG) [Distance and Off-Premises Contracts Law]. 

(the 

Previously  the  transposition  of  both  the  Doorstep  Selling  Directive 
85/577/EEC and the Distance Selling Directive 97/7/EC had been included 
in  the  KSchG.  The  new  Directive  was  implemented  in  different  pieces  of 
legislation: some regulations, e.g. general information requirements under 
Article  5  of  the  Directive  2011/83/EU,  were  transposed  into  the  KSchG 
whereas the new regime of distance selling and off-premises contracts was 
excluded from the general KSchG. The reason for this divided transposition 
was  –  as  can  be  seen  in  the  material  of  the  legislative  process  –  that  it 
would not be appropriate to integrate the new regime of distance and off-
premises  contracts  into  the  more  compact  KSchG,  because  due  to  a 
centralisation  and  standardisation  of  the  two  distribution  types,  the  new 
rules  are  more  extensive  than  the  old  ones  (Directives  85/577/ECC  and 
97/7/EC). In comparison the newly created FAGG offered enough space to 
transpose  the  new  regime  systematically.104  However  this  increased  the 
fragmentation  and  complication  of  consumer  protection  in  Austria: 
according to Kern (2015) this makes it more difficult for the consumer (as 
well  as  for  the  trader)  to  find  out  about  and  understand  his  rights  and 
obligations.105 

Overall,  consumer  protection  in  Austria  is  not  characterised  by  a  uniform 
legal  framework.  The  main  piece  of  legislation  is  the  Austrian  Federal  Act 
on  Consumer  Protection,  which  aims  at  protect  consumer  interests. 
Whereas sector specific provisions of consumer protection law can be found 
on  laws  regulating  certain  business  activities,  e.g.  Austrian  Federal  Act  on 
Payment Services (Zahlungsdienstegesetz) contains information obligations 
for traders, which are binding for them when dealing with consumers. 

Changes  with  the  previous  consumer  protection  law  are  relevant  when 
drafting terms and conditions (i.e. pre-contractual information and cooling-
off  periods).  Previous  legislation  on  consumer  protection  was  looser  for 
contracts  between  traders  and  consumers  not  concluded  within  the 
business  premises  of  the  traders.  The  new  legislation  introduced  further 
obligations  for  distance  contracts  and  off-premises  contracts.  In  addition, 
the  consumer  legislation  provides  the  consumer  with  a longer  cancellation 
period  for  failure  to  provide  sufficient  information:  under  previous 
legislation it used to be 3 months. 

Furthermore  the  new  Federal  Act  on  Distance  Contracts  and  Off-Premises 
Contracts  (Fern-  und  Auswärtsgeschäfte-Gesetz)  has  brought  about 
substantial changes for traders, which make it necessary to adapt existing 

104  ErläutRV  89  BlgNR  25.GP  4  et  seq.  [Erläuterungen  zur  Regierungsvorlage,  Beilage  Nummer  89,  25. 
Gesetzgebungsperiode,  Seite  folgende  –  Government  proposal,  attachment  no.  89,  25th  period  of 
legislature, pp. 4 et seq.]. 

105  https://www.law.muni.cz/sborniky/off-premises2014/Off-premises-contracts.pdf  

191 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Austria 

general terms and conditions in order to being compliant with the new legal 
framework  for  consumer  protection  in  Austria.  One  of  the  most  important 
changes  is  the  extension  of  the  withdrawal  period  for  consumers  from 
seven to fourteen days. This extension is enforced by a particular sanction: 
In case the trader does not provide adequate information for the consumer 
prior  to  the  conclusion  of  a  distance  contract  or  an  off-premises  contract, 
the  withdrawal  period  is  extended  until  such  adequate  information  is 
provided  (up  to  a  maximum  extension  of  the  withdrawal  period  of  one 
year). 

Another  important  change  is  related  to  the  refund  period,  which  was  not 
set  in  the  previous  legislation.  If  the  consumer  decided  to  withdraw  from 
the  contract  it  had  to  be  rescinded  step  by  step.  The  delivery  costs  were 
considered  part  of  the  payment,  thus  they  were  part  of  the  refund.  The 
consumer  was  entitled  to  claim  damages  if  the  trader  “culpably”  delayed 
the  refund.  Also,  the  consumer  could  only  claim  the  costs  incurred  in 
returning the goods to the trader if it was explicitly agreed in the contract 
terms. 

Specific  provisions  for  online  content  have  also  been  implemented  and 
include  not  only  companies  active  in  online  businesses,  but  for  all 
companies  operating  virtually:  as  a  result  now  companies  that  distribute 
their  goods  or  services  via  catalogues  or  web  shops  have  to  comply  with 
further  information  obligations  tailored  to  the  respective  distribution 
channel  used.  Among  other  implications  for  businesses,  these  obligations 
make  it  necessary  to  redesign  the  layout  of  the  web  pages  leading  to  the 
conclusion of contracts online. 

Regulatory 
choices 

With regard to regulatory choices (Art. 29 CRD), the option provided for in 
Article 3(4) of the Directive has been used. In addition, only services 
contracts require written confirmation of contracts concluded by telephone 
(Art 8.6). 

Regulatory  choices  defined  in  art.  6(7),  art.  6  (8),  Art  7(4),  and  art.  9(3) 
have not been used. 

Sources of 
information 

Eversheds, 2016, “Consumer Rights Directive”, available at: 
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consumer-
rights-directive.page [accessed July 2016] 

SELUCKÁ,  Markéta  (ed.).  Off-Premises  contracts  and  consumer  protection 
in  law  and  praxis  :  Workshop  proceedings  [online].  1.  st.  ed.  Brno  : 
Masaryk  University,  Faculty  of  Law,  2015.  [cit.  2015-30-06].  67  p. 
Publications  of  the  Masaryk  University,  theoretical  series,  edition  Scientia; 
File 
z: 
http://science.law.muni.cz/content/cs/open-access/monografie/ 

978-80-210-7883-3. 

Dostupné 

ISBN 

531. 

No. 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Belgium 

The  Directive  was  implemented  by  the  Act  of  21  December  2013,  which 
introduced  Book  VI  of  the  Economic  Law  Code  on  Market  Practices  and 
Consumer  Protection  (the  “Book  VI  Act”),  The  Book  VI  Act  entered  into 
force on 31 May 2014. 

The key differences between the previous national consumer legislation and 
the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

• 

Increased  transparency  for  consumer  contracts  (Articles  6  and  10): 
Belgium  already  had  similar  pre-contractual  information  requirements 
to those in the CRD. The provisions of the Book VI Act have, however, 
strengthened  the  existing  requirements.  For  example,  the  sanction  in 
the  Book  VI  Act  for  failure  to  comply  with  pre-contractual  information 
requirements has changed from the previous  Belgian legislation, which 
stated that the cancellation period was 3 months for distance sales and 
unlimited for off-premises sales. 

•  Harmonised withdrawal period (Article 9): The cooling off period for off-
premises  sales  was  previously  7  calendar  days.  The  Directive  has  had 
no  impact  on  the  cooling  off  period  for  distance  sales,  which  was 
already 14 calendar days under Belgian law. 

•  Better refund rights (Article 13): The Directive’s 14-day requirement is 
a change from previous legislation, which required consumer refunds to 
be made as soon as possible and in any case within 30 days of the day 
that the consumer gave notice to cancel to the trader. 

•  New  consumer protection for digital products (Articles 5 and 6): These 
provisions, 
the 
operability and functionality of digital content, are new requirements in 
Belgian law.  

regarding  mandatory  consumer 

information  on 

•  Clear  rules  delivery  of  goods  for  off-premises  sales  (Article  18):  The 
requirement for a trader to deliver the goods to the consumer within a 
maximum of 30 calendar days of signing the contract is new in Belgian 
law  for  off-premises  sales  (an  equivalent  provision  already  existed  for 
distance sales). Previously, a trader had to deliver the goods as soon as 
there  was  an  agreement,  and  delivery  could  be  requested  by  the 
consumer  at  any  time  from  the  moment  the  agreement  came  into 
existence – in other words the CRD is less onerous in this respect than 
the pre-existing national law.   

Elimination  of  hidden  Internet  charges  (Articles  5  and  6),  banning  pre-
ticked  boxes  (Article  22),  elimination  of  surcharges  for  use  of  credit  cards 
and  hotlines  (Articles  19  and  21)  are  all  new  requirements,  though  the 
protection  against  credit  card  surcharges  was  already  implicit  in  Belgian 
law. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article  3(4)  –  National  provisions  transposing  the  Directive  not  be 
applied  to  off-premises  contracts  where  payment  to  be  made  by  the 
consumer is less than €50 – but only for contracts with a humanitarian 
purpose. 

•  Article  7(4)  –  The  Book  VI  Act  allows  for  the  possibility  to  not  take 
advantage  of  the  option  of  the  lighter  information  regime  for  off-
premises contracts for repairs or maintenance not exceeding €200. The 
unofficial translation notes that Belgium has made use of this option but 
it  is  the  King  who  has  the  possibility  of  introducing  a  lighter 
arrangement for providing information. It is believed that this possibility 

193 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Belgium 

has been retained but has not been used yet. 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

•  Article  8(6)  –  As  above,  the  Book  VI  Act  allows  for  the  possibility  to 
require  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by  telephone. 
However, this requirement has not yet been applied. 

•  Article  9(3)  –  There  is  a  prohibition  on  the  trader  from  collecting  the 
payment  from  the  consumer  during  a  period  of  7  days  after  the 
conclusion of the contract.  However, this doesn't apply to off-premises 
contracts concluded in shows, fairs and exhibitions. 

Bulgaria 

The  Directive  has  been  transposed  into  Bulgarian  law  by  the  Consumer 
Protection Act of 25 July 2014 amending the Consumer Protection Act of 10 
June 2006. 

With regard to the changes with previous legislation and the new provisions 
of  the  Directive,  the  Consumer  Protection  Act  of  25  July  2014  sets  the 
following: 

•  On  information  requirements  (Article  5  &  6  of  the  CRD):  The  previous 
legislation did not cover some aspects such as information requirements 
in  regard  to  duration  of  the  contract,  conditions  for  terminating  the 
contract,  complaints  or  issues  relating  to  digital  content.  Contracts  for 
the  supply  of  water,  gas,  electricity  central  heating  and  digital  content 
(not  delivered  on  a  durable  medium)  were  not  mentioned  either.  The 
new  legislation  (Consumer  Protection  Act  of  25  July  2014,  Art  4  &  47) 
covers the Directive almost verbatim (Articles 5 & 6 of the CRD) and as 
in  the  Directive  distinguishes  between  premises  and  off-premises  and 
distance contracts. Article 6(8) has not been used (regulatory choice). 

•  However,  there  are  some  additional  requirements  in  the  Consumer 
Protection  Act  of  25  July  2014,  Art  4  (compared  to  the  CRD)  for 
premises  contracts  such  as:  Requirements 
information  on 
availability of the goods or services, possible hazards in regard to using 
the  goods  or  services,  conditions  of  use  of  the  goods  or  services 
together  with  other  goods  and  services  and  expiry  date  of  the  goods, 
when applicable. 

for 

• 

Information on digital content (Art 5 & 6): This is a new requirement in 
Bulgaria (Art 4 & 47). 

•  The formal requirements for distance and off-premises contracts: There 
were  formal  and  specific  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises 
contracts but not as extensive as set in the Consumer Protection Act of 
25  July  2014.  E.g.  No  requirements  in  regard  to  digital  content  were 
mentioned,  there  was  no  fully  harmonized  14  days  withdrawal  period, 
no specific withdrawal form. Under the new legislation the law is in line 
with the CRD as described above. 

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  for  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts:  Prior  to  the  Consumer  Protection  Act  of  25  July 
2014  the  right  of  withdrawal  was  set  to  7  working  days  for  distance 
contracts (14 calendar  days for financial services) and 7 calendar days 
for  off-premises  contracts.  In  case  the  trader  has  not  informed  the 
consumer about his/her right of withdrawal the right of withdrawal was 
set to 3 months. 

194 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Bulgaria 

• 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form:  No  specific 
withdrawal form was mentioned in earlier regulations. The trader had to 
inform  the  consumer  that  he/she  can  withdraw  from  the  contract.  The 
consumer  had  to  inform  the  trader  in  writing  in  case  he/she  wants  to 
withdraw from the contract. Under the new legislation the consumer is 
given  a  choice  to  use  an  annexed  form  of  withdrawal  or  to  inform  the 
trader in another unambiguous way (Art 52). 

•  Exemptions from the right of withdrawal (Art. 16): Previous legislation:  
Off premises contracts: contracts for a value of less than 120 leva (appr 
61  EUR),  real  estate  contracts,  regular  supply  of  food  and  beverages, 
catalogue  sales,  insurance,  securities.  Distance  contracts:  service 
contracts after the service has been fully performed if the performance 
has begun with the consumer's prior express consent (also CRD), goods 
and  services  whose  price  depends  on  the  fluctuations  of  the  financial 
markets  (also  in  CRD),  custom-made  goods(also  in  CRD),  non-durable 
goods(also  in  CRD),  audio-,  video  products  and  programmes  unsealed 
by  the  customer  (also  in  CRD),  delivery  of  newspapers  and  magazines 
(also in CRD), gambling and lotteries The new legislation  (Art 57) is in 
line with the CRD (Art 16) 

•  New  rules  on  delivery  and  passing  on  the  risk:  Prior  to  the  Consumer 
Protection  Act  of  25  July  2014  there  were  no  explicit  rules  on  delivery 
and  passing  on  the  risk  for  off  premises  contracts;  For  distance 
contracts  delivery  was  set  to  30  days  from  signing  of  the  contract.  In 
the  new  legislation  there  is  a  30  days  delivery  deadline  if  no  other 
delivery  deadline  was  agreed  upon  (Art  103b).  There  are  also  explicit 
rules on passing on the risk (Art 103v) in line with CRD (Art 20). 

•  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation to 
contracts  already  concluded  (Art  21):  This  is  a  new  requirement  in 
Bulgaria.  It's  worth  noting  that  the  new  legislation  doesn't  mention 
'basic  rate'.  The  wording  is  “...the  consumer  pays  for  the  cost  of  the 
call, without any additional fees.” (Art.62g). 

•  Elimination  of  surcharges  for  the  use  of  credit  cards  and  and  other 
means of payments: This is a new requirement (Art. 62b) and the same 
as that of the Directive. 

•  Better  refund  rights:  Under  the  previous  legislation  for  distance 
contracts  the  refund  had  to  be  made  within  30  days  following  the 
withdrawal notice. If the delivered goods or services were different than 
the agreed ones, the trader had to pay for returning the goods. Refund 
rights  were  not  mentioned  for  off  premises  contracts.  Under  the  new 
legislation  (Art  54)  there  is  a  14  days  refund  period  starting  with  the 
withdrawal notice. 

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes: This is a new requirement (Art 62 d). 

•  Provision on inertia selling: This is a new requirement (Art. 62). 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Bulgaria has not applied the exemption for contracts under €50 (Article 

3(4)). 

•  Art  6(7)  –  imposing  national  language  requirements  for  contractual 
information: Bulgaria has applied this regulatory choice, requesting that 
the information is provided in Bulgarian (Article 47(7) of the Consumer 
Protection  Act:  ‘Article  47(7)  The  information  in  the  distance  sales 
contract and off-premises contract shall be provided in Bulgarian.’) 

195 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Bulgaria 

•  Article  6(8)  and  additional  information  requirements.  This  option  has 

not been used. 

•  Art 7(4) –It was decided not to apply this regulatory choice. 

•  Art  8(6)  requiring  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by 
telephone.  Bulgaria  has  applied  this  regulatory  choice.  Article  49(7)  of 
the Consumer Protection Act: ‘Article 49(7) When concluding a distance 
contract  by  telephone,  the  trader  shall  confirm  the  offer  to  the 
consumer  on  a  durable  medium.  The  consumer  shall  be  bound  only 
once he has signed the offer or has sent his written consent stating his 
acceptance of the offer.’ 

•  Art.  9(3)  allowing  MS  to  prohibit  to  collect  payment  in  off-premises 

contracts during a given period. This option has not been used. 

Sources of 
information 

http://www.lex.bg/bg/laws/ldoc/2135513678 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011L0083&rid=1 

“ЗАКОН  за  защита  на  потребителите”,  в  сила  от  26.03.2013  (Consumer 
Protection Act , 26.03.2013) 

Information  on  the  USE  of  Regulatory  choices  under  Article  29  CRD  – 
updated in January 2016 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Croatia 

CRD  was  implemented  by  a  Consumer  Protection  Act  (CPA)  NN  41/14 
(“ZZP  =  Zakon  o  zaštiti  potrošača”  in  Croatian)  which  came  into  force  in 
three stages, part of the law came into force on 8th April 2014, 2nd part on 
13th June 2014, and finally certain provisions came into force on 1st January 
2015.  

CPA  NN  41/14  is  a  third  version  of  the  Croatian  Consumer  Protection  Act 
that  has  been  adopted  in  the  last  15  years.    Previous  versions  of  the 
Consumer Protection Act date back to 2007 and 2003, respectively. 

As regards  contracts negotiated away from business premises, these  were 
already  regulated  by  the  previous  versions  of  CPA.    According  to  the 
current  CPA,  the  definition  of  a  distance  contract  also  covers  situations 
where  the  consumer  visits  the  business  premises  for  the  purpose  of 
gathering  information  about  the  goods  and  services  and  subsequently 
negotiates and concludes the contract at a distance.  A contract concluded 
this way was not considered a distance contract under the old CPA.  

The key differences between the previous national consumer legislation and 
the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

• 

Increased  transparency  for  consumer  contracts  (Articles  6  and  10):  
Croatia  already  had  similar,  although  less-extensive  pre-contractual 
information requirements under its previous legislation. 

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  (Article  9):  before 
adopting the CRD, the withdrawal period was set to be 8 working days 
after receiving a written confirmation. 

• 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form:  no  model 
instructions  on  withdrawal  were  included  in  the  previous  versions  of 

196 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Croatia 

CPA. 

•  Better consumer protection in relation to digital products (Articles 5 and 
6):  this  is  a  new  provision,  previous  Croatian  legislation  on  consumer 
protection  did  not  set  any  particular  rules  regarding  buying/selling 
digital products. 

•  Elimination of hidden charges and cost traps on the Internet (Articles 5 
and 6):  this regulatory measure was not included in previous CPAs. 

•  Banning  pre-ticked  boxes  on  websites  (Article  22)  -  this  regulatory 

measure was not included in previous CPAs. 

•  Better refund rights; clear rules on delivery and passing of risk  (Article 
13): previous legislation required  consumer  refunds to be  made within 
30  days  from  the  day  that  the  consumer  gave  notice  to  the  trader.  
Another  novelty  is  that  the  consumer  must  return  the  goods  within  14 
days.  There was no such deadline specified under the old law. 

•  Elimination  of  surcharges  for  the  use  of  credit  cards  and  hotlines 
(Articles  19  and  21):  this  regulatory  measure  was  not  included  in 
previous CPAs. 

Regulatory 
choices 

Croatia has not used any of th regulatory choices other than Article 6(7) to 
impose  language  requirements  regarding  the  contractual  information  for 
distance  and  off-premises  contracts.  Article  57(8)  states  that  contractual 
information  must  be  written  in  Croatian  language  and  Latin  script,  which 
does not exclude other languages easily comprehensible to consumers. 

Sources of 
information 

Sources: Petrašević, Tunjica and Poretti, Paula (2016) Consumer Protection 
in Croatia with a Special Emphasis on Distance and Off-Premises Contracts. 
Časopis - Društveni ogledi, 3 (1). pp. 9-54. ISSN 2303-5706  

2016, 

EC, 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/hr_regulatory_choices_en_version.pdf [accessed July 2016] 

Regulatory 

Choices”, 

available 

“HR 

at: 

Protection  Act,  2007, 

Consumer 
novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2007_12_125_3594.html 
2016] 

available 

at:  http://narodne-
July 

[accessed 

Consumer 
novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_03_41_723.html [accessed July 2016] 

Protection  Act,  2014, 

at:  http://narodne-

available 

Country 

Previous 
situation and 
changes 
compared 
with previous 
legislation 

Czech Republic 

The  CRD  was  implemented  as  part  of  Act  No.  89/2012  Coll.  (i.e.  Civil 
Code), which came into force  on 1st January 2014. However, since then 
several legal experts expressed the view that the Directive has not been 
correctly transposed.  

For instance, the interpretation of Article 5(2) of the Directive regarding 
information  requirements  for  contracts  other  than  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts  has  changed  due  to  the  way 
it  has  been 
translated.  Therefore, its implementation in the Civil Code is not correct 
(i.e.  Article  5(2)  which  reads  “Paragraph  1  shall  also  apply  to  contracts 
……  of  digital  content  which  is  not  supplied  on  a  tangible  medium”  has 
been  translated  as  §  1811(2)  “Paragraph  1  shall  not  apply  to  contracts 

197 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Czech Republic 

..… of digital content if it is supplied on a tangible medium ”).  

Moreover,  the  Civil  Code  as  opposed  to  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive 
lacks  definitions  of  certain  expressions  that  are  important  for  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  provisions  –  e.g.  digital  content   and  business 
premises.  

The key differences between the previous national consumer legislation 
and the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

•  Fully harmonised 14 days' withdrawal period (Article 9): No changes 
in  the  period  of  withdrawal,  also  14  days,  although  the  earlier 
legislation  did  not  include  a  provision  for  withdrawal  for  goods 
consisting of multiple lots and contract for regular delivery of goods. 
Under the earlier legislation, the withdrawal period could be extended 
to  one  month  if  the  goods  or  services  were  not  delivered  within  14 
calendar  days  after  the  doorstep  sales  contract  was  concluded). 
However,  there  was  not  an  specified  time  limit  for  delivery  by  the 
trader in the previous legislation.   

•  Exceptions  from  the  right  of  withdrawal  (Article  16):  Previous 
national  legislation  already  contained  a  regulatory  measure  which 
listed  a  number  of  exceptions  from  the  right  of  withdrawal.   The  list 
of exceptions has, however, been extended under the current Czech 
legislation.   Following  exceptions  from  the  right  of  withdrawal  have 
been added: §1837c: the supply of alcoholic beverages; §1837l: the 
supply of digital content which is not supplied on a tangible medium 
if  the  performance  has  begun  with  the  consumer’s  prior  express 
consent  and  his  acknowledgment  that  he  thereby  loses  his  right  of 
withdrawal;  §1837f:  contracts  where  the  consumer  has  specifically 
requested  a  visit  from  the  trader  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out 
urgent repairs or maintenance and §1837j: the supply of newspaper, 
periodical or magazine. 

•  Better  refund  rights;  clear  rules  on  delivery  and  passing  of  risk 
(Article  13):  the  previous  Czech  legislation  stated  that  consumer 
refunds must be made  within 30 days of the day that the consumer 
gave  notice  to  cancel  to  the  trader.  Previous  legislation  also  stated 
that  for  distance  sales   the  trader  had  a  right  to  reimbursement  of 
the  costs  in  order  for  the  goods  to  be  returned,  other  than  for 
doorstep sales where the trader had to refund all of the money that 
the consumer had paid, including the cost of returning the goods. 

• 

Increased  transparency  for  consumer  contracts  (Articles  6  and  10): 
Under the Directive the trader must provide the consumer with clear 
information  that  meets  a  number  of  requirements  to  help  the 
consumer  make  an  informed  choice.  Failure  to  comply  with  these 
requirements  could  lead  to  the  consumer’s  right  to  cancel  being 
extended  up  to  one  year.  Under  the  precious  Czech  law,  the 
cancellation period was only 3 months.  

•  Clear  rules  on  delivery  of  goods  for  off-premises  sales  (Article  18): 
the Directive states that unless otherwise agreed with the consumer, 
the  trader  will  have  a  maximum  of  30  calendar  days  to  deliver  the 
goods to the consumer from signing the contract; however there’s no 
mention of a time limit on when the goods must be delivered to the 
consumer  in  Czech  legislation  not  in  the  new  either  the  old 
legislation.    

198 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Czech Republic 

•  New consumer protection for digital products  (Articles 5 and 6): This 
a  new  requirement  under  Czech  law  as  previous  legislation  did  not 
provide any such rules on digital content. 

•  Elimination  of  hidden  Internet  charges  (Articles  5  and  6),  banning 
pre-ticked boxes (Article 22): This is a new requirement under Czech 
law as previously there were no rules on online sales and tick boxes. 

•  Elimination of surcharges for use of credit cards and hotlines (Articles 

19 and 21): This provision is new to Czech law.  

The Czech Republic has not used any regulatory choice provided for by 
the Directive, with a certain exception regarding the language 
requirements (i.e. Article 6(7) of the Directive). This requirement is 
regulated in Section 1881 of the Czech Civil Code. The section stipulates 
that the trader must make all his communication towards the consumer 
in a clear and comprehensible manner in the language in which the 
contract is concluded; although it does not mention the Czech language. 

Regulatory 
choices 

Sources of 
information  

Eversheds, 2016, “Consumer Rights Directive”, available at: 
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consumer-
rights-directive.page [accessed July 2016] 

Forejtová, M., 2016, “Směrem k revizi spotřebitelského práva”, available 
at: http://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/obchodni-pravo/smerem-k-
revizi-spotrebitelskeho-prava [accessed July 2016] 

European Commission, 2014, “Regulatory Choices under Article 29 CRD”, 
available at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/rights-
contracts/directive/transposition_list_crd_en.htm  [accessed July 2016] 

Vyhnal, V., 2013, “Směrnice 2011/83/EU a její implementace do českého 
soukromého práva”, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, available 
at: https://is.muni.cz/th/325927/pravf_m/Diplomova_prace.pdf 
[accessed July 2016] 

Zákon číslo 89/2012 Sb., available at: 
http://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2012-89/zneni-0 [accessed July 2016] 

Country 

Previous 
situation and 
changes 
compared with 
previous 
legislation 

Cyprus 

The  2013  Law  on  Consumer  Rights,  Law  133(Ι)/2013  transposes  the 
CRD in Cyprus.  With regard to the new requirements: 

•  On  information  requirements  (Article  5  &  6  of  the  CRD):  Law 
133(Ι)/2013  sets  similar  requirements  to  those  of  the  directive, 
adding  more  provisions  than  earlier  legislation,  e.g.  whether 
consumers  may  need  to  pay  for  returning  the  goods.  It  is  worth 
noting  that  in  the  cases  of  omission  of  information  on  the  right  of 
withdrawal, the new law follows the Directive (in line with Article 10 
of  the  CRD)  and  extends  the  withdrawal  period  to  12  months  from 
the end of the initial withdrawal period. Prior to this law, the period 
was only extended by 3 months.  

• 

Information  on  digital  content  (Art  5  &  6).  Digital  products  were 
outside  the  scope  of  the  two  earlier  laws  on  off-premises  and 
distance  contracts  (i.e.  they  were  not  included  in  the  definition  of 
“goods”) and they are now included. 

199 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Cyprus 

•  New rules on delivery and passing on the risk. New requirement. 

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  (Article  9).  The 
previous legislation also had a period of 14 days for which the right 
of  withdrawal  may  be  invoked,  unless  a  different  period  had  been 
agreed  with  the  trader.    If  the  trader  didn’t  provide  the  required 
information, the length of the withdrawal period would be 3 months. 

•  The  old  regulations  stipulated  the  information  to  be  included  in  the 
withdrawal notice submitted by the consumer to the trader.  A model 
withdrawal form was also included in an Annex. 

•  Elimination of surcharges for the use of credit cards and other means 
of  payments.  No  explicit  mention  on  credit  card  surcharges  was 
identified.    There  used  to  be  a  provision  for  “fraudulent  use”  of  the 
consumer’s  payment  card  (δόλια  χρήση  της  κάρτας  πληρωμής), 
according to which, the consumer is  entitled to be  refunded the  full 
payment, but it was removed in a subsequent amendment. 

•  Better  refund  rights.  There  were  provisions  on  refund  rights  in  the 
old  legislations.    The  amounts  paid  must  be  refunded  to  the 
consumer  after  s/he  exercised  the  right  of  withdrawal.    There  are 
also  provisions  relating  to  credit  offered  to  the  consumer  by  the 
trader  and  to  what  goods  the  consumer  may  not  return  (but  for 
which he has to pay the corresponding value). 

•  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation 

to contracts already concluded (Art 21) 

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes. This is a new requirement. 

•  Provision on inertia selling. This is a new requirement. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article  3(4)  –  Cyprus  has  made  use  of  this  regulatory  choice, 

introducing a limit of €20. 

•  Article  6(7)  and  language  provisions.  Cyprus  has  made  use  of  this 
regulatory  choice,  requesting  that  the  information  is  provided  in  at 
least  one  of  the  official  languages  of  Cyprus  or  in  the  language  of 
choice of the consumer, provided the trader also agrees. 

•  Article  6(8)-  additional  info  requirements:  Cyprus  has  transposed 

this regulatory option. 

•  Art 7(4) - Cyprus has not chosen to apply this choice. 

•  Art 8(6)  - Cyprus has  made use of this regulatory  choice asking for 

confirmation of the consent on a durable medium. 

•  Art. 9(3) - Cyprus has opted not to implement this regulatory choice. 

http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/2000_1_14/full.html 

Transposition 
http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/arith/2013_1_133.pdf  

Law 

for 

Cyprus: 

Sources of 
information 

Old 
http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/2000_1_13/full.html  

off-premises 

contracts 

law 

on 

(consolidated): 

Old law on distance contracts (consolidated): 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Overview of 
key 
changes 
compared 
with 
predecessor 
legislation  

Denmark 

Denmark has transposed the CRD into Danish Law by two legislative acts, 
the Consumer Contracts Act (Lov om forbrugeraftaler, no. 1457) and the 
“Act amending the Sale of Goods Act and several other Acts”(Lov om 
ændring af købeloven og forskellige andre love) no. 1460. Both acts were 
adopted by the Danish Parliament on 17 December 2013.  

information  requirements 

Increased  information  requirements.  Consumer  contracts  already 
for 
today  contain  a  number  of  specific 
businesses, but the new Act extends these. Art. 17 of the Act introduces a 
requirement for the trader to provide information about  the product's main 
characteristics, the trader's identity, name and place of business, terms of 
payment  and  delivery,  total  price,  and  an  indication  that  the  rules  on 
deficiencies  in  the    Sale  of  Goods  Act  (‘Købeloven’)  are  applicable.  These 
are seen by Danish stakeholders as important additions to the information 
requirements,  as  they  helps  to  unify  and  streamline  the  rules  for  the 
different types of consumer agreements in one single Act.  

Delivery.  According  to  the  new  rules,  unless  otherwise  agreed,  the 
delivery  must  take  place  "without  undue  delay"  and  within  30  days  after 
the  agreement.  The  rules  cannot  be  waived  to  the  detriment  of  the 
consumer.  If  a  delay  occurs,  the  Act  allows  the  consumer  the  right  to 
terminate the contract and demand a refund of his money. 

Extended  right  of  withdrawal.  Like  in  the  previous  Act,  the  consumer 
has 14 days to cancel a purchase made online from the day the goods are 
received. However, a new element in the Act is that the consumer does not 
lose  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  purchase  if  the  goods  are  used  or 
destroyed,  but  in  such  cases,  the  trader  may  deduct  an  amount  for 
depreciation. If the consumer wants to exercise his/her right of withdrawal, 
an  unambiguous  declaration  must  be  provided  to  the  seller.  The  Act 
provides a standard document that can be used for this purpose.  

In  spite  of  the  rule  that  the  consumer  is  not  allowed  to  test/inspect  the 
good  any  more  than  they  would  have  done  in  a  shop,  the  Act  contains  a 
new provision that still allows the consumer to return the good. Throughout 
the process of adopting the Act, the Danish Chamber of Commerce voiced 
opposition  to  this  extension  to  the  right  of  withdrawal,  since  it  was  not 
considered to be clear enough. 

Returned goods and repayment 

Under the new Act, if a consumer exercises his/her right to withdraw from 
a purchase, the  goods  must be  returned to the seller within 14 days  after 
the  consumer  has  notified  the  seller  of  wanting  to  exercise  their  right.  In 
return,  consumers  have  the  right,  in  principle,  to  get  their  money  back 
within  14  days  after  the  seller  has  received  the  message  from  the 
consumer. The ‘old’ consumer Act contained a deadline of no later than 30 
days  after  the  returned  item  was  received  by  the  seller.  The  seller  may 
withhold  the  money  until  the  goods  have  been  received  or  until  evidence 
has  been  provided  that  the  goods  have  been  returned  –  whichever  comes 
first.  

The  consumer  bears  the  risk  of  return  delivery.    Under  the  ‘old’  Act, 
the  trader  bore  the  risk,  if  a  good  that  was  being  returned  to  them  got 
damaged  on  the  way.  With  the  new  Act  this  risk  has  been  transferred  to 
the  consumer,  so  the  consumer  is  liable  if  the  goods  are  lost  or  damaged 
during the return shipping. 

In  summary,  the  key  differences  between  the  previous  national  consumer 

201 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Denmark 

legislation and the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

•  Harmonised withdrawal period (Article 9)  

• 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form  (Art.  11(3)):  There 
were previously no formal requirements in relation to completing a form 
in Danish law for direct or distance selling when exercising the right of 
withdrawal. 

•  The  obligation  to  pay  -  must  clearly  signpost  the  customer's obligation 

to pay rather than simply 'order'  

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes (Article 22) is a new requirement. 

•  The consumer bears the risk of return delivery. 

Regulatory 
choices  

•  Article  3(4)  –  Off-premises  contracts  where  the  value  does  not  exceed 
350 DKK (approx. 46  EUR) and where the goods and the payment are 
exchanged  simultaneously  are  exempted,  cf.  Section  7(2)(7)  of  the 
Danish Consumer Contracts Act. 

•  Article 6(7) – The contractual information the trader is required to give 
to the consumer in distance and off-premises contracts has to be given 
in  Danish,  if  the  trader  has  marketed  the  goods  or  services  in  Danish, 
unless  the  consumer  consents  to  receive  the  information  in  a  different 
language, cf. Section 8(3) of the Danish Consumer Contracts  Act.   

Denmark has decided not to apply any other regulatory choices. 

Sources of 
information 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/eu_consumer_policy/consumer_consult
ative_group/national_consumer_organisations/docs/national-consumer-
organisations_da_listing.pdf   

http://en.kfst.dk/~/media/KFST/Om%20os/Profilbrochure/Engelsk/201
4/KFST%20profilbrochure%202014%20ENG.pdf  

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/dk_crd_regulatory_choices_english.pdf  

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/comm
ission_europeenne/sec/2008/2547/COM_SEC(2008)2547_EN.pdf  

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/rights/docs/comparative_table_
en.pdf  

http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/198466338/Forbrugerrettigheds
direktivets_betydning_for_dansk_ret.pdf    -  overview  of  the  Impact  of 
the Consumer Rights Directive on Danish law   

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Estonia 

The  provisions  of  the  CRD  were  transposed  into  the  Estonian  Law  of 
Obligations  Act  (the  ‘ELOA’),  and  the  Consumer  Protection  Act.  Both 
entered into force on 13 June 2014, as required by the CRD   

No  national  legislation  regarding  consumer  protection  exists  in  Estonia 
outside of the European acquis. The majority of changes that have occurred 
are  therefore  the  result  of  changes  to  previous  European  legislation.  The 
main changes are 

• 

Information  requirements  (5  and  6):    The  ELOA  has  increased  the 
number of pre-contractual information requirements in Estonia; 

202 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Estonia 

•  New consumer protection for digital products (Articles 5 and 6): This a 

new requirement under Estonian law. 

• 

In  Estonia  the  law  already  provided  a  ‘cooling  off  period’/withdrawal 
period of 14 days.  However, it has increased the cancellation period in 
case of omission of information on the right of withdrawal, previously 3 
months under Estonian law, and now up to one year. 

•  Written notification of withdrawal has to be sent by the consumer, with 
the provision of a withdrawal form being a new requirement in Estonia 

• 

If the trader fails to provide the pre-contractual information (normally 
provided along with the contract), the withdrawal period shall expire 12 
months after the expiry of the withdrawal period 

•  Better  refund  rights:  there  are  now  clearer  provisions  regarding  the 
payment  for  return  of  goods.  Previously  in  Estonia,  consumer  refunds 
had to be made as soon as possible, and at the latest within 30 days of 
cancelling. Under the CRD, refunds are to be received within 14 days of 
cancelling.  

•  Rules  on  delivery  of  goods  to  the  consumer.  Previously  the  trader  had 
only to deliver an order within ‘a reasonable amount of time’. Provisions 
are  much  clearer  under  the  implementing  legislation  with  the  trader 
having a maximum of 30 days to deliver a good. 

•  Provisions  concerning  digital  content.  This  is  a  new  requirement  under 

Estonian law. 

•  Online  sales  and  tick  boxes.  This  is  a  new  requirement  under  Estonian 

law. 

•  Debit/credit card charges. This is a new requirement under Estonian 

law. 

• 

Inertia selling. This is a new provision in Estonia. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Exemption  for  lower  value  transactions.    Estonia  has  decided  to  set  a 

lower threshold than the CRD, at 20 euros; 

•  Following Art 6(7), Estonia has imposed national language requirements 
for  contractual  information,  i.e.  Estonian,  unless  the  consumer  has 
agreed for information to be provided in another language. 

•  Estonia  has  introduced  a  requirement  for  written  confirmation  of 
contracts  concluded by  telephone (Art 8(6)  of  CRD) but only when the 
professional calls the consumer. 

No other regulatory choices have been applied. 

Sources of 
information 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/ee_-
_regulat_options_english.pdf 

Law of Obligations Act, accessed at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee 

Consumer Protection Act, accessed at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee 

Country 

Finland 

Previous 
situation 
and 

Prior  to  the  CRD,  the  Finnish  Consumer  Protection  Act  applied.  This 
included  the  transposition  of  Directive  97/7/EC  (Distance  Contracts)  and 
the Directive on contracts away from business premises (85/577/EEC). The 

203 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Finland 

CRD  required  significant  changes  to  the  Finnish  Consumer  Protection  Act. 
The  most  significant  amendments  relate  to  the  consumer's  right  to  return 
goods  purchased  in  distance  or  off-premises  sales  and  to  the  trader's 
obligation to provide information to consumers. 

Previously, under the Finnish Consumer Protection Act, the consumer had a 
mandatory  right  to  return  products  purchased  online  or  via  other  distance 
selling  methods  without  any  charge.  However,  under  the  amended 
legislation  transposing  the  CRD,  as  per  Art.  14  of  the  CRD,  the  consumer 
will be liable for the direct cost of returning products unless the trader has 
agreed to bear them, or the trader has failed to inform the consumer that 
they  are  legally  obliged  to  pay  the  return  costs,  unless  specifically  agreed 
with  the  trader.  Some  undertakings  may  continue  to  provide  free  returns 
on a voluntary basis. 

The  CRD  imposes  an  obligation  on  consumers  to  notify  traders  when 
returning  a  product.  Previously,  the  legislation  recognised  the  act  of 
returning  goods  as  notification  of  their  return.  However,  under  the  CRD, 
this  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute  a  notification  of  return.  Under  the 
amended  national  Act,  if  a  consumer  decides  to  withdraw  from  a  distance 
contract,  the  consumer  is  bound  to  inform  the  trader  of  the  withdrawal 
unequivocally  beforehand,  whereas  the  legislation  previously  allowed  the 
consumer to withdraw from a distance selling contract simply by returning 
the  product. Whilst  the  CRD  introduces  a  model  withdrawal  form  for  this 
purpose, the consumer's notification does not need any special form to be 
valid. 

The right of withdrawal in Finland prior to the CRD, as set out in the Finnish 
Consumer  Protection  Act  was  14  calendar  days  (i.e.  no  change  following 
CRD  transposition).  With  regard  to  the  obligations  of  traders,  the  CRD 
imposes  an  extensive  duty  on  the  trader  to  provide  information  to  a 
consumer  prior  to  the  purchase  of  distance  sales  or  off-premises  sales. 
Previously,  the  Act  only  included  a  list  of  general  details  of  which 
consumers must be notified, such as the trader's name and address. Under 
the  revisions  to  the  Act  to  reflect  CRD  transposition,  traders  must  now 
inform  consumers  about  the  total  costs  of  the  purchase  (including  taxes 
and  delivery  costs,  if  possible),  and  meet  the  CRD’s  pre-information 
requirements  relating  to  informing  consumers  about  their  rights  and 
obligations and about the digital compatibility of products.  

A refund must be made within 30 days of being notified of the withdrawal. 

Transposing the CRD required amendments to the provisions of the Finnish 
Consumer Protection Act, for example concerning the passing of liability for 
risk and delays. Furthermore, among the changes made to the Act are the 
inclusion  of  an  obligation  for  traders  to  inform  consumers  as  to  the 
compatibility  of  digital  content  with  devices  and  programmes.  Under  the 
amended  legal  Act  in  Finland,  consumers  are  entitled  to  withdraw  from  a 
service contract after the service provider has initiated the execution of the 
service but not after the service has been fully completed. However, these 
amendments do not apply to digital content if this is delivered electronically 
e.g.  digital  music  at  the  request  of  a  consumer.  In  line  with  the  relevant 
provisions in the CRD, when contacting the trader in relation to a concluded 
contract, consumers must not be  charged more than the standard rate for 
telephone calls. 

In  summary,  key  changes  since  the  CRD  came  into  effect  compared  with 
the previous situation are that:  

204 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Finland 

•  Consumers  now  have  to  bear  the  cost  of  returning  goods  whereas 

previously they didn't. 

•  Previously,  the  return  of  goods  in  itself  constituted  notification  of 
withdrawal,  whereas  now  consumers  are  encouraged  to  complete  a 
model  proforma  notifying  the  return  of  the  product  (either  using  the 
withdrawal form or by other unequivocal means)  

•  Banning  pre-ticked  boxes  (Article  22).  A  new  section  10a  has  been 
added  to  Chapter  2:  Collection  of  additional  charges.  This  states  that 
“Prior to concluding a contract, a trader shall seek the express consent 
of  the  consumer  to  any  additional  charges  not  included  in  the  price 
given for the consumer good or service. A consumer’s failure to reject a 
default  option  whereby  he  consents  to  additional  charges  shall  not 
constitute  express  consent.  If  a  consumer  has  not  given  express 
consent to additional charges, he shall not have an obligation to pay the 
same." 

Regulatory 
choices 

Sources of 
information 

With regard to regulatory choices (Art. 29 CRD), the option provided for in 
Article 3(4) of the Directive has been used (see Chapter 6, Section 3(1) of 
the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  as  amended  by  Act.  No  1211/2013). 
According to a consultatee the limit is €30. 
•  http://www.mondaq.com/x/283224/Dodd-

Frank+Wall+Street+Reform+Consumer+Protection+Act/The+Amendm
ents+Of+The+Finnish+Consumer+Protection+Laws+Provide+For+New
+Obligations+And+Rights+To+Undertakings  

•  http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=094fd890-6113-4163-

bdd6-5c59701278ae 

•  http://oikeusministerio.fi/en/index/currentissues/tiedotteet/2014/06/ku
luttajansuojalakiuudistuuverkkokaupankuluttajansuojaanmuutoksia.htm
l 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

France 

At  transposition  stage,  the  Directive  was  implemented  into  French  Law 
through the French Law on Consumer Protection (Law no. 2014-344) which 
entered  into  force  on  17  March  2014  and  modified  the  French  Consumer 
Code.  Whilst  some  of  the  Hamon  Law  provisions  came  into  effect  on  17 
March 2014, all the main provisions relating to the CRD (with the exception 
of credit/debit card charges) came into effect on the 1st of July 2014.  Prior 
to the CRD’s transposition, the Code already stated that a trader may not 
charge  fees  for  using  a  specific  payment  means.  One  of  the  legal  gaps 
identified  in  the  Hamon  Law  therefore  pertains  to  legal  uncertainty  as  to 
whether fees can be charged for a particular means of payment. 

The  French  Consumer  Code  has  however  subsequently  been  updated  in 
2016106, and came into effect from 1st of July 2016. Under the new Code, 
consumers have 14 days to exercise their right of withdrawal in relation to 
distance sales and off-premises sales, an increase from the previous period 
of  7  days.  When  a  consumer  exercises  their  withdrawal  right,  the  trader 

106  L’ordonnance  n°  2016‐301  du  14  mars  2016  publiée  au  JORF  du  16  mars  2016  et  pour  sa  partie 

réglementaire, du décret n° 2016‐884 du 29 juin 2016.   

205 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

France 

Regulatory 
choices 

must reimburse the  consumer (including delivery costs) without delay and 
at  the  latest  within  14  days  following  the  consumer’s  notification  of  their 
decision  to  withdraw.  This  has  “reduced  the  time  consumers  need  to  wait 
for reimbursements, which was previously up to 30 days following the day 
that  the  consumer  gave  notice  to  cancel”.107  General  pre-contractual 
information  requirements  are  set  out  in  Articles  L131-1  to  L131-4  of  the 
revised code deal set out the pre-contractual information obligations. 

Under  French  law  previously  a  delivery  date  had  to  be  provided  in  all 
contracts where the value of the goods was in excess of EUR 500 and in all 
distance  sales  contracts.  The  adoption  of  the  Code  to  transpose  the  CRD 
has led to this being changed to 50 EUR. 

The  extension  of  the  CRD  to  include  digital  content  is  a  new  requirement. 
The  Code  states  that  a  trader  must  inform  consumers  about  the 
functionality  of  digital  content  and  where  applicable,  the  relevant 
interoperability  of  digital  content.  However,  it  has  been  noted  in  literature 
on CRD implementation in France that the Code does not expressly refer to 
applicable 
technical  protection  measures  of  digital  content.  The 
requirement  to  ban  “pre-ticked”  boxes  on  websites  is  also  a  new 
requirement. 

France has decided to make use of the following regulatory choices:  

•  Article 6(7) – language requirements.  The research found that the 
transposition  of  these  Articles  into  French  law  has  not  led  to  any 
changes  in  respect  of  the  pre-existing  requirements  since  language 
requirements  since  already  required  under  French  law  relating  to  the 
provision of pre-contractual information to consumers.   

•  Article  8(6)  contracts  concluded  by  telephone  -  has  been  taken 
up.  Section  5,  Article  L221-16  of  the  2016  revised  French  national 
consumer  code  regulates  such  contracts.  It  also  stipulates  in  Article 
L221-17  that  it  is  illegal  to  conclude  contracts  through  an  unknown 
telephone number (blocked number) when a sales professional calls the 
consumer directly. 

In  relation  to  language  requirements,  under  the  Act  of  4  August  1994, 
known  as  "loi  Toubon",  there  has  been  a  long-standing  requirement  in 
French  legislation  to  ensure  that  documents  relating  to  goods  sold  in 
France are translated into French. In the sense that under the optional Art. 
6(8) of the CRD, language requirements will continue to apply, this means 
that  for  firms  already  selling  in  France,  there  is  no  substantive  change. 
However,  for  international  companies  selling  into  France,  some  feedback 
was obtained that the language requirements are regarded as an additional 
cost. 

France  decided  not  to  exclude  from  the  Directive’s  scope  for  off-premises 
contracts  for  amounts  of  <EUR  50,  as  authorised  by  Article  3(4),  or 
introduce a lighter set of requirements for pre-contractual information and 
the  conditions  for  concluding  contracts  where  these  contracts  do  not 
exceed EUR 200, as authorised by Article 7(4). The reason given was that 
France  has  a  legal  tradition  of  seeking  to  maximise  protection  for  the 
economic interests of consumers.  

Sources of 

•  2016 

French 

consumer 

code 

(Code  de 

la 

consommation) 

107  Eversheds, 2016, “Consumer Rights Directive” 

206 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

information 

France 

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT0000
06069565&dateTexte=29990101&categorieLien=cid  

•  Eversheds,  2016, 

“Consumer  Rights  Directive”,  available  at: 

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consume
r-rights-directive.page [accessed July 2016]  

•  Eric  Wallenbrock, 2014, The 2014 French law  on Consumer Protection, 
at: 

available 
http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2014/france/the-2014-
french-law-on-consumer-protection [accessed July 2016] 

• 

JOURNAL  OF  EUROPEAN  CONSUMER  AND  MARKET  LAW,  Volume  3 
(2014) / Issue 4, Guillaume Busseuil, 'Implementation of the Consumer 
Rights  Directive:  France'  (2014)  3  Journal  of  European  Consumer  and 
Market Law, Issue 4, pp. 270–274 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Germany 

the  property  agency”108 

Directive  2011/83/EU  has  been  transposed  in  Germany  through  the  “Act 
Implementing the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) and amending the law 
regulating 
(Gesetz  zur  Umsetzung  der 
Verbraucherrechterichtlinie  und  zur  Änderung  des  Gesetzes  zur  Regelung 
der  Wohnungsvermittlung)  which  came  into  force  on  the  13th  June  2014. 
This  law,  while  being  an  individual  measure,  has  also  had  a  profound 
impact  on  other  laws  and  led  to  changes  of  the  German  Civil  Code 
(Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch - BGB). 

The  general  provisions  of  off-premises  contracts  can  be  found  in  the 
general  part  of  the  BGB  and  in  the  general  law  of  obligations,  while 
whereas  the  provisions  in  the  latter  are  found  in  non-consecutive  places, 
namely in Sections 312 et seq. and in Sections 355 et seq. The former deal 
with  the  factual  preconditions  that  have  to  be  met  to  apply  the  consumer 
protections rules. They also standardize the basic duties to inform and the 
right  to  withdraw.  The  latter  provisions  deal  with  the  question  of  how  the 
right  to  withdraw  is  exercised  and  what  legal  consequences  follow  from  a 
withdrawal. 

The first amendment to the Civil Code relates to the general part for which 
Article  13  had  to  be  changed  to  clarify  the  term  “consumer”.  This  means 
that a natural person is considered a consumer when they “predominately” 
undertake  a  legal  transaction  for  non-commercial  purposes.  The  articles 
which  have  been  affected  by  the  Directive  in  the  BGB  are  set  out  in  the 
following table: 

108 Verbraucherrechtliches... (n.d.): Synopse zur Umsetzung der Verbraucherrechterichtlinie [Synopsis 

implementing the Consumer Rights Directive], available at 
http://www.verbraucherrechtliches.net/VRRL/VRRL-Uebersicht.html 

207 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Germany 

In  addition,  the  introductory  law  of  the  Civil  Code  was  amended  and  the 
structure  of  that  law  was  changed  from  distance  sales  to  cover  all  sales 
channels which can be seen with Art. 246 (including paragraph § 1 until 4 
(a-c)) relating to the information duties for consumer contracts.  

With  regards  to  information  obligations,  the  provisions  in  sections  312 
et seq. BGB apply not only to distance contracts, contracts negotiated away 
from business premises but also to consumer contracts in general. However 
the  latter  are  subject  to  certain  information  obligations,  but  not  to  the 
statutory  right  of  withdrawal.  Thus  off-premises  contracts 
include 
information  requirements  that  went  beyond  what  was  required  in  the 
former  legislation:  according  to  the  former  law,  the  consumer  had  to  be 
informed only about the right to withdraw the contract.  

Significant  changes  also  occurred  to  the  right  of  withdrawal  regime:  (i) 
the  model  on  withdrawal  defined  under  article  246a  has  been  adapted  to 
the  new  requirements  introduced  in  the  CRD,  (ii)  the  consumer  must 
exercise  the  right  of  withdrawal  through  an  explicit  declaration  to  the 
trader,  i.e.  sending  back  the  goods  shall  no  longer  be  sufficient  (in  this 
respect it is important that the trader provides a form of withdrawal to the 
consumer),  (iii)  the  withdrawal  period  no  longer  depends  on  the  proper 
fulfilment  of  information  obligations  but  only  on  the  proper  instruction  of 
the right of withdrawal (for purchases of digital content that are not stored 
on  physical  data  carrier  the  withdrawal  period  already  commences  upon 
conclusion  of  the  contract),  (iv)  the  “eternal  right  of  withdrawal”  was 
removed  even  in  case  the  trader  did  not  properly  instruct  the  consumer 
about  his  right  of  withdrawal,  (v)  all  goods/payments  do  not  have  to  be 
returned within 30 days but within 14 days. 

Another article of this law which was changed is Article 247 concerning the 
information duties of consumer loans, financial aid for remuneration  and – 
loan  broker  contracts.  The  Directive  has  also  led  to  the  adoption  of 
secondary  legislation  that  aims  to  protect  consumers  against  unfair 
contract  terms  when  purchasing  goods  such  as  on  the  law  on  the  right  of 
withdrawal.  The  following  table  compares  the  current  regulatory  regime 
relating  to  the  provisions  (and  regulatory  choice)  in  the  CRD  with  the  old 
regulatory regime. 

208 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Germany 

The  GUV  has  not  changed  previous  German  legislation  as  the  cooling 
off period in Germany  was already 14  calendar days for both  distance 
and  doorstep  sales.  This  requirement  in  the  GUV  has  changed  the 
legislation  in  Germany  which  previously  stated  that  a  trader  is  in 
default  if  it  does  not  refund  the  consumer  within  30  days.  Under 
previous legislation, the refund had to include the costs of delivery but 
the consumer was obliged to bear the costs for return if the goods had 
a value below EUR 40. 

Regulatory 
choices 

With regard to regulatory choices, the only one used is Art. 3(4), excluding 
from the scope of the regulation goods that have a value below EUR 40. 

Sources of 
information 

Francuski, 2013, Neue Verbraucherrechte für Deutschland - Zur Umsetzung 
der EU-Richtlinie über Rechte der Verbraucher zum 13.06.2013 aus Sicht 
des Verbrauchers, available at: http://www.infopoint-
europa.de/assets/Uploads/Beitraege-Rechtsreferendare/Francuski-
Verbraucherrechte.pdf [accessed July 2016]  

Vyhnal,  V.,  2013,  “Směrnice  2011/83/EU  a  její  implementace  do  českého 
soukromého práva”, Právnická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity, available at: 
[accessed 
https://is.muni.cz/th/325927/pravf_m/Diplomova_prace.pdf 
July 2016] 

Greece 

In  Greece,  the  CRD  was  transposed  by  Joint  Ministerial  Decision  No  Ζ1-891/2013 
amending  Law  Νo  2251/1994  on  consumer  protection.  In  comparison  with  previous 
legislation: 

Overview 

Former provisions 

On information 
requirements (Article 5 
& 6 of the CRD): the 
new law adds more 
detail on the required 
information for distance 
and off-premises 
contracts, e.g. costs of 

Article 3(1) prescribed the following information to be supplied 
for off-premises contracts: 

a.  The  name  or  trade  name  and  the  full  address  of 
the supplier and of the party signing the contract 
the 
in 
supplier.   Reference  of  postal  box  number  is  not 
sufficient, 

the  name 

behalf 

and 

on 

of 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Greece 

b.  Date  and  full  address  of  the  place  the  contract 

was drawn up, 

c.  Description of the nature and characteristics of the 

goods or services, 

d.  The  terms  for  the  execution  of  the  contract  and 
most  importantly  the  way  and  time  that  goods  are 
to be delivered or services to be rendered, 

e.  Total  fees  payable  by  the  consumer  and  terms  of 
payment  and  most  importantly,  in  case  fees  are 
credited  or  payable  in  instalments,  the  actual  interest 
rate  and  the  maximum  allowable  interest  rate  limit, 
and 

f.  The  consumer’s  right  to  withdraw  the  contract  as 
per  paragraph  4  of  this  article,  and  a  standard 
statement,  in  a  separate  document,  to  be  used  for 
repudiation of contract by the consumer 

Article 4(2) prescribed the following information to be supplied 
for distance contracts: 

a.  The identity and the address of the supplier, 

b.  The  essential  characteristics  of  the  product  or 

service, 

c.  The  price,  quantity  and  transportation  expenses, 
as  well  as  the  value  added  tax,  if  it  is  not  included 
in the price, 

d.  The method of payment, delivery and execution, 

e.  The period in which the offer or the price stands, 

f.  The right to withdraw, 

g.  The  cost  for  using  a  communication  means  from 
distance  when  it  is  calculated  based  on  a  pricelist 
other  than  the  basic,  subject  to  par.  3  of  this  article, 
and 

h.  The  minimum  duration  of  the  contract 

for 

contracts pertaining to the provision of products 

Not  addressed  in  the  Law  prior  to  amendment  by  Joint 
Ministerial Decision No Ζ1-891/2013  

returning goods by 
consumers, and also 
added some more 
provisions. Additional 
information 
requirements are, e.g., 
that, where applicable, 
the consumer might 
have to pay the cost for 
returning the goods. 

Information  on  digital 
content  (Art  5  &  6). 
There  were  no  explicit 
provisions 
for  digital 
the  old 
in 
products 
regulation.    There  was 
another  decree  dealing 
with 
e-trade 
(2000/31). 
directive 
However,  e-mails  were 
included  in  the  means 
of  communication 
for 
distance contracts. 

the 

Formal 
requirements 
for  off-premises  and 

For  off-premises  contracts  no  formal  requirements  existed  in 
the  Law  prior  to  amendment  by  Joint  Ministerial  Decision  No 

210 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

distance  contracts  (Art 
7  &  8).    Improvements 
have  been  introduced, 
off-
particularly 
premises contracts 

for 

same 

in 
The 
did 

Fully  harmonised  14 
days'  withdrawal  period 
for  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts  (Art 
9(1)).    This  period  was 
old 
the 
old 
legislation. 
not 
legislation 
include  the  extensive 
list  of  exemptions  of 
article  16  of  the  CRD, 
apart  from  point  16(b) 
on goods or services for 
is 
which 
on 
dependent 
the 
fluctuations 
market. 
financial 
However, 
the  old 
in 
regulation,  if  the  trader 
didn’t 
the 
required  information  on 
withdrawal,  the  length 
withdrawal 
of 

the  price 

provide 

the 

in 

Greece 

Ζ1-891/2013. 

For distance contracts, Article 4(9) prescribed the following: 

The distance  contract is void in favour  of the consumer if the 
latter  does  not  receive  in  due  time,  during  the  contract’s 
execution  and,  at  the  latest,  upon  delivery  of  the  products, 
which are not to be delivered to third parties,  in written form 
or through any another fixed means as per case of paragraph 
1 of article 4a, to which the consumer has access,  and in the 
language  used  in  the  proposal  for  the  contract,  at  least  the 
following information: 

a.  The information as per paragraph 2 of this article, 

b.  The  name  and  address  of  the  supplier’s  store 
closest  to  the  consumer  to  which  the  consumer  can 
address for the repair of the product, 

c.  The method of payment including any credit terms 
or  payment  in  instalments  as  well  as  the  terms  for 
securing the payment, 

d.  The  terms  and  the  way  of  exercising  the  right  of 
withdrawal  according  to  paragraph  10  and,  on  a 
separate document or electronic file, a sample form for 
the  withdrawal.   During  the  period  covered  by  the 
contract  the  consumer  has  the  right  to  receive  these 
information, further to his request, in writing. 

e.  Information  regarding  after  sales  servicing  and  the 

existing commercial guarantees, and  

f.  The  terms  for  the  termination  of  the  contract  if  it 
is  a  contract  of  indefinite  period  or  with  a  duration 
longer than one year 

For  off-premises  contracts,  Article  3(4) 
following: 

 prescribed  the 

The  consumer  has  the  right  to  withdraw  contracts  as 
per   paragraphs  1  and  2  or  to  abrogate  a  proposition 
submitted  in  accordance  with  paragraph  3,  within  fourteen 
(14)  calendar  days  from  the  receipt  of  the  contract 
document  or  from  any  subsequent  receipt  of  the  product, 
unless the contract provides for a longer period 

For distance contracts, Article 4(10) prescribed the following: 

In  every  distance  contract  the  consumer  has  the  right  to 
withdraw  without  giving  any  justification  within  fourteen 
(14) calendar days, unless a longer period has been agreed, 
returning  the  product  in  its  original  condition,  without  being 
charged  for  any  expenses  other  than  return  expenses.  (…)  If 
the  supplier  has  not  fulfilled  the  obligations  stated  in 
paragraph 9, the period for withdrawal is three months.   

Article 4(8) also provided the following: 

211 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Greece 

period  would  be  3 
months  rather  than  12 
as  it  is  currently  set  by 
the Directive 

(…)  If  this  deadline  (NB.  this  is  the  30  days  for  delivery  of 
goods  or  services)  expires  without  the  supplier  having  taken 
any  action,  the  consumer  has  the  right  to  withdraw  the 
contract 

Introduction  of  an  EU-
wide  model  withdrawal 
not 
form. 
included  in  the  legal 
text, as is in Annex I(B) 
of the CRD. 

It  was 

from 

the 
Exemptions 
right of withdrawal (Art. 
16) 

Article  3(1)  stipulated  that  the  consumer  must  be  given  a 
“standard  statement,  in  a  separate  document”,  while  Article 
4(9)  stipulated  the  consumer  must  be  given  “a  sample  form 
for  the  withdrawal”.   A  model  withdrawal  form  was  not 
included in the legal text 

For  off-premises  contracts,  Article  3(7)  stipulated 
following: 

the 

The stipulations of this article are not applicable: 

a.  On  sales  of  street  vendors  who  have  no  permanent 

establishment,  

rights 

b.  On contracts for the construction, sale or leasing of 
immovable  property  and  on  contracts  pertaining  to 
immovable 
other 
property.   However,  contracts  for  the  supply  of  goods 
that  will  be  integrated  in  immovable  property  or 
contracts for the repair of buildings fall within the scope 
of the stipulations of this article, 

connected 

with 

c.  On  contracts  for  the  supply  of  food,  drinks  or  any 
other  goods  which  are  intended  for  domestic 
daily  consumption  and  which  are  home  delivered  by 
deliverers at regular or frequent intervals, 

d.  On  contracts  for  the  supply  of  goods  or  services,  on 
condition  that  the  following  terms  are  fulfilled:  i)  the 
contract  is  made  based  on  the  supplier’s  catalogue, 
which  the  consumer  has  had  the  opportunity  to  read 
without  the  representative  of  the  presence  of  the 
supplier’s  representative,  ii)  it  is  expected  that  the 
supplier’s  representative  and  the  consumer  will 
continue to be in contact for that transaction or any 
other future transaction, and iii) the catalogue as well 
as  the  contract  inform  the  consumer  that  he  has  the 
right to return the goods to the supplier within a period 
not  less  than  fourteen  (14)  calendar  days  as  from  the 
date of their receipt, or to terminate the contract within 
the  same  period,  without  undertaking  any  obligation 
other than handling those goods with reasonable care.   

For  off-premises  contracts,  Article  3(8)  further  stipulated  the 
following: 

The right to withdraw is not applicable on contracts pertaining 
to  goods  and  services,  the  price  of  which  depends 
on  fluctuations in the capital market in the sense of point 
i, case b, paragraph 6, article 4a 

For distance contracts, Article 4(13) stipulated the following: 

The stipulations of this article are not applied: 

212 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Greece 

a.  To automatic vendors, 

b.  To commercial areas of automatic vending,  and 

c.  To  contracts  signed  with  telecommunication 

agents through public phone booths. 

Paragraphs  10  (NB.  this  is  the  paragraph  on  the  right  to 
withdraw  from  a  distance  contract)  (…)  do  not  apply  on 
contracts 

food,  drink  and  any  other 
a.  For  supply  of 
commodity 
domestic 
consumption and delivered at home or at the place of 
residence,  or  work  of  the  consumer  at  regular  or 
frequent intervals by distributors,  

intended 

daily 

for 

New  rules  on  delivery 
and  passing  on  the  risk 
(Art 18 & 20) 

"basic 

The 
requirement 
consumer 
lines 
in 
contracts 
concluded (Art 21) 

rate" 
for 
telephone 
to 
already 

relation 

Elimination 
of 
surcharges  for  the  use 
of  credit  cards  and 
of 
other 
payments (Art 19).  

means 

b.  For rendering of services pertaining to transportation, 
the 
hotel, 
supplier   undertakes  the  obligation  to  render  the 
services on a specific date or in a specific period 

entertainment 

food 

and 

if 

Article 4(8) stipulated the following for distance contracts: 

Unless  otherwise  agreed  by  the  contracting  parties,  the 
supplier  must  fulfil  the  contract  within  a  period  of  thirty  (30) 
days maximum  from  the  date  the  order  of  the  consumer  is 
communicated to him. 

If this deadline expires  without  the  supplier having taken any 
action, the consumer has the right to withdraw the contract. 

No  provisions  were  made  for  the  passing  of  risk  (in  the 
meaning of Article 20 of Directive 2011/83/EU 

Article  4  (2)  included  the  following  among  the  formal 
requirements for distance contracts: 

(…)  the  cost  for  using  a  communication  means  from  distance 
when it is calculated based on a pricelist other than the basic 

Article 4(3) stipulated the following: 

The  consumer  is  not  billed  for  expenses  of  communication 
from  distance  used  to  communicate  the  acceptance  of  the 
service or the rendering of the service, unless otherwise stated 
in the proposal of the contract 

No  explicit  mention  on  credit  card  surcharges  ,  but  Article 
4(11) stipulated the following: 

(…)  In  case  of  fraudulent  use  of  the  payment  card  of  the 
consumer  in  the  context  of  the  distance  contract,  the 
consumer  may 
the 
payment   according  to  the  stipulations  of  the  Civil  Code  and 
the amounts paid be recredited or returned 

cancellation  of 

that 

ask 

the 

Better 
(Art 13) 

refund 

rights 

Article 4(10) prescribed the following 

In case the right to withdraw is exercised by the consumer as 
per  the  above,  the  supplier  is  obliged  to  return  the  amounts 
paid  to  him  by  the  consumer  within  thirty  (30)  calendar 
days 

213 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Banning default 
options  (Art 22) 

on 

inertia 
Provision 
selling  (Art  27)  -  no 
obligation  to  pay  for 
unsolicited  goods   or 
services 

Greece 

No provision was being made in the law 

Article 4(4) prescribed the following: 

It  is  forbidden  to  send  products  or  provide  services  to  the 
consumer without his prior relevant order, if the consumer has 
to pay a price for them, or if he has to return them, even if he 
does  not  have  to  pay  any  dispatch  expenses.   In  case 
products  are  sent  or  services  are  rendered  as  per  the 
above  subparagraph,  the  consumer  has  the  right  to 
dispose  of  the  products  or  the  services  as  he  pleases, 
without  owing  any  fee,  and  free  of  any  obligation  to 
store  or  return  the  products.   The  absence  of  any  reply 
from the consumer in case he is given goods or services 
which he has not ordered does not constitute consent or 
silent acceptance of the relevant transaction on his part 

Regulatory choices 

Art 3(4) 

Greece has made use of this regulatory choice, introducing a limit of €30 

Art 6(7) 

Greece has not introduced the language requirements 

Art 6(8) 

Art 7(4) 

Art 8(6) 

Art 9(3) 

Greece have transposed the text of Art 6(8) of the Directive (almost word-
by-word) in the form of Article 3β(7) of their Law 2251/1994 (as amended) 
but  they  have  not  introduced  any  concrete  additional  information 
requirements.   Interviews  have  confirmed  that  no  real  action  has  been 
taken in this area. 

The  Greek  legislator  did  not  make  use  of  the  discretion  allowed  and 
implemented Article 7(4) of the Directive by way of exact transliteration 

Greece  has  made  use  of  this  regulatory  choice  asking  for  confirmation  of 
the consent on a durable medium 

Greece  has  made  use  of  this  regulatory  choice,  forbidding  collection  of 
payment during the withdrawal period. 

Sources of information 

Transposition 
http://www.synigoroskatanaloti.gr/docs/law/gr/KYA-Z1-891-2013.pdf 

Ministerial 

Decree 

Joint 

for 

Greece: 

Greek Law 2251/1994 in its latest form: 

http://www.efpolis.gr/el/library2.html?func=download&id=388&chk=6e1d381ae7061297
44176e857561d642&no_html=1  

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Hungary 

The Directive is transposed into Hungarian law by Government Decree 
45/2014 of 26 February 2014 laying down detailed rules for contracts 
between consumers and undertakings. The Decree overrules Government 
Decree No. 213/2008. (VIII.29.) on doorstep sales and No. 17/1999. (II.5.) 
on distance sales. 

With regard to the changes with previous legislation and the new provisions 
of the Directive, Decree 45/2014 sets the following: 

•  On  information  requirements  (Article  5  &  6  of  the  CRD):  The  Decree 

214 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Hungary 

changes  previous  legislation  in  Hungary.  Hungary  already  had  some 
(albeit  different)  information  requirements  in  relation  to  both  distance 
and doorstep sales, however, the requirements of the Decree are more 
extensive. 

• 

Information on digital content (Art 5 & 6). This is a new requirement in 
Hungary.  The  Decree  specifies  that  before  contracting,  the  trader  has 
make reasonable efforts to provide the consumer with clear information 
about  the  functionality  of  digital  content,  the  application  of  any 
technical  protection  measures  and  its  compatibility  with  hardware  and 
software. 

•  The formal requirements for distance and off-premises contracts. Under 
previous  legislation,  in the  case  of  distance  sales,  the  trader  could  not 
assume  the  acceptance  of  its  offer  where  the  consumer  failed  to  give 
express  consent.  The  Decree  has  made  this  provision  more  certain, 
particularly with regards to payments. 

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  for  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts.  The  Decree  has  changed  previous  legislation  in 
Hungary under which there was a cooling off period of 8 working days. 

• 

Introduction of a new model withdrawal form was a new requirement 

•  Delivery deadlines were already specified in the civil code. 

•  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation to 

contracts already concluded (Art 21). 

•  Elimination of surcharges for the use of credit cards and other means of 
payments.  This  is  partially  a  new  requirement  in  Hungary.  Under 
previous  legislation,  the  trader  had  to  inform  the  consumer  about  all 
additional  costs  generally,  but  there  were  no  specific  regulations  on 
methods  of  payment  and  charging  fees  for  certain  payment  methods. 
The Decree now clarifies this. 

•  Better  refund  rights.  The  trader  now  has  to  refund  the  whole  amount 
paid  by  the  consumer  without  delay  but  at  the  very  latest  within  14 
days  including  the  cost  of  the  performance.  The  Decree  has  changed 
the  previous  legislation  in  Hungary,  according  to  which,  for  distance 
sales, the trader had to refund the whole amount paid by the consumer 
without  delay  but  at  the  very  latest  within  30  days.  In  the  case  of 
doorstep sales there were no deadlines under Hungarian legislation. 

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes. The trader now has to obtain the consumer’s 
express  consent  for  any  payments.  If  the  trader  does  not  comply  with 
this requirement, the contract is void. Under previous legislation, in the 
case  of  distance  sales,  the  trader  could  not  assume  the  acceptance  of 
its offer where the consumer failed to give express consent. The Decree 
has  made  this  provision  more  certain,  particularly  with  regards  to 
payments. 

•  Provision on inertia selling. As above. 

Regulatory 
choices 

Hungary  has  only  applied  the  regulatory  choice  under  Art.  6(8)  on 
additional information requirements. The Government Decree has broadens 
the  information  requirements  in  reference  to  information  requirements 
contained  in  Directive  2006/123  and  Directive  2000/31.  It  has  laid  down 
additional  requirements  on  the  provision  of  information  on  warranties  and 
guarantees (which may be provided using a model given in Annex 3 of the 
decree); Information on the right to conciliation; and providing information 

215 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Hungary 

on  electronic  correspondence  other  than  for  off-premises  or  distance 
contract. 

Sources of 
information 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/hu_reg_choices_art_29_en_version.pdf 

Consumer  rights  directive  Multijurisdictional  guide  (second  edition) 
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consumer-
rights-directive.page 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/overview_regulatory_choices.pdf 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Ireland 

The  Directive  was  implemented  in  Ireland  by  the  European  Union 
(Consumer  Information,  Cancellation  and  Other  Rights)  Regulations  2013 
(S.I.  No.  484  of  2013)  (the  “Irish  Regulations”).  The  Irish  Regulations 
entered into force on 13 June 2014. They apply to contracts concluded on 
or after that date. 

The key differences between the previous national consumer legislation and 
the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

• 

Increased transparency for consumer contracts (Articles 6 and 10): The 
new  pre-contractual  requirements  change  previous  legislation  which 
stated that the cancellation period could be extended up to 3 months on 
top  of  the  cooling  off  period  of  7  days  for  failure  to  provide  sufficient 
pre-contractual information. 

•  Harmonised  withdrawal  period  (Article  9):  This  provision  in  the  Irish 
Regulations  is  a  change  from  previous  Irish  law,  which  provided  for  a 
cooling  off  period  of  7  working  days  for  both  distance  sales  and  off-
premises sales. 

•  Better  refund  rights  (Article  13):  This  new  provision  changes  previous 
legislation  which  stated  that,  as  long  as  the  consumer  exercises  his 
right to cancel during the cooling off period, the trader must reimburse 
any sums paid by the consumer (except the direct cost of returning the 
goods) as soon as possible and in any case not later than 30 days. 

•  Rules  on  delivery  (Article  18):  Section  29(2)  of  the  Sale  of  Goods  Act 
1893, which provides where no delivery time has been fixed the period 
within  which  the  seller  should  send  the  goods  should  be  “reasonable”, 
has  been  amended  by  the  Irish  Regulations  to  reflect  the  CRD’s 
maximum 30-day delivery requirement. 

•  Passing of risk (Article 20): Passing of risk in contracts of sale in Ireland 
was previously regulated by section 20 of the  Sale of Goods Act 1893. 
This  provided  that,  unless  otherwise  agreed  by  the  parties,  the  goods 
remain  at  the  seller’s  risk  until  the  property  in  (i.e.  the  ownership  of) 
the  goods  is  transferred  to  the  buyer.  Once  that  property  has  been 
transferred  to  the  buyer,  the  goods  are  at  the  buyer’s  risk  whether 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Ireland 

delivery  has  been  made  or  not.  Though  the  passing  of  the  property  in 
the goods will often coincide with their delivery, it may also precede it. 
If the property in the goods passes prior to delivery and the goods are 
then  lost  or  damaged  while  still  in  the  seller’s  possession  or  while  in 
transit to the buyer, the loss or damage will fall on the buyer. 

•  New  consumer  protection  for  digital  products  (Articles  5,  6):  These 
provisions, 
the 
operability and functionality of digital content, are new requirements in 
Irish law.  

regarding  mandatory  consumer 

information  on 

Elimination  of  hidden  Internet  charges  (Articles  5  and  6),  banning  pre-
ticked  boxes  (Article  22),  elimination  of  surcharges  for  use  of  credit  cards 
and hotlines (Articles 19 and 21) are all new requirements in Irish law. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article  3(4)  –  Irish  Regulations  apply  exemption  for  off-premises 
contracts where payment to be made by the consumer is less than €50. 

•  Article 7(4)  – Regulation 8 of the  Irish Regulations takes advantage  of 

the option. 

Other regulatory choices do not apply. 

Sources of 
information 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/ireland_-
_regulat_options_13_dec_2013.pdf 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Italy 

The Legislative Decree No. 21/2014 dated 21 February 2014 (the “Decree”) 
implemented the CRD (Directive 2011/83/EU) and entered into force as of 
13  June  2014.  The  Decree  involved  many  changes  to  the  previously 
applicable  national  legislation,  the  Italian  Consumer  Code  (the  “codice  del 
consumo”),  known  as  CodCons  for  short.  In  the  new  decree,  Chapter  I, 
Title III, Part III – Articles 45 – 67 of the previous applicable CodCons was 
completely  replaced  with  a  new  Chapter,  entitled  “Consumer  rights  in 
contracts”.  Section  II  (Art  49-59  CodCons)  transposes  Art.  6  –  16  of  the 
CRD. Art. 52-59 of CodCons transposes Art. 9-16 of the CRD relating to the 
provisions on the exercise of a withdrawal from a contract.  

The  2014  Decree  addresses  distance  contracts  and  traditional  contracts, 
although  the  main  changes  are  focused  on  distance  and  off-premises 
contracts.  Unlike  the  previous  national  legislation  in  force,  the  decree 
provides  for  full  harmonisation  in  the  field  of  distance  contracts  and  in 
contracts negotiated away from business premises, and a minimum level of 
harmonisation  for  contracts  other  than  distance  contracts  in  line  with  the 
CRD.  

With regard to the scope of application, the new rules apply to the following 
types  of  contract  concluded  between  a  trader  and  consumer  including:  (i) 
sales  contracts;  (ii)  service  contracts  (excluding  financial  services);  (iii) 
contracts  for  supply  of  water,  gas,  electricity  or  district  heating,  including 
by  public  providers;  (iv)  contracts  of  digital  content  supplied  online  or 
downloaded  and  (v)  distance  contracts  and  vi)  off  premises  contracts. 
However, several types of consumer contracts fall outside of the application 

217 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Italy 

of the new rules, such as contracts related to gaming, lotteries and betting; 
distance contracts relating to financial services; sales transferring rights on 
real estate properties; contracts for tourist services and package holidays; 
and  contracts  negotiated  away  from  business  premises  “for  which  the 
payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed €50”. 

The  applicable  Italian  legislation  respects  the  principle  of  a  single  public 
enforcer  of  consumer  protections  rules.  The  Decree  entrusts  the  power  to 
enforce the new rules to the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”). In terms 
of  obligations  upon  companies  concluding  contracts  with  consumers,  the 
Decree mainly deals with (i) consumer information for contracts other than 
distance or off premises contracts; and (ii) consumer information and right 
of withdrawal for distance and off-premises contracts.  

With regard to contracts other than distance or off-premises contracts, i.e. 
contracts  negotiated  on  business  premises,  Art.  48  of  the  amended  ICC 
establishes  the  minimum  content  of  pre-contractual  information  to  be 
provided  by  the  trader,  such  as  the  characteristics  of  the  goods  and 
services;  the  identity  of  the  trader;  trader’s  address  and  contact  number; 
the  total  price;  and  interoperability  features  in  the  case  of  contracts 
relating to digital content. 

Requiring  such  information  as  part  of  pre-contractual  requirements  is  a 
major  improvement  compared  with  the  previous  legislation  (as  it  stood 
before  it  was  amended),  since  similar  requirements  in  the  pre-contractual 
phase previously existed only for certain contracts (i.e. holiday packages or 
distance  contracts).    A  key  change  is  that  the  CRD  has  extended  the  pre-
contractual information obligation to any type of consumer contract.  

In  relation  to  distance  and  off-premises  contracts,  the  new  rules  provide: 
(i)  an  extension  of  the  content  of  the  information  that  the  trader  shall 
provide to the consumer in the pre-contractual phase; (ii) the provision of 
formal  requirements;  and  (iii)  the  provision  of  a  strengthened  right  of 
withdrawal.  Obligations  for  pre-contractual  information  to  be  supplied  to 
the  consumer  in  a  clear  and  transparent  manner  are  more  specific  now 
than in the ICC before it was amended. For example, in relation to distance 
contracts  concluded  by  electronic  means,  there  is  now  a  specific  formal 
requirement that the consumer be informed that, by activating a button or 
a  link,  that  he  is  then  obliged  to  pay.  Regarding  contracts  concluded  by 
telephone,  the  trader  must  confirm  the  proposal  and  give  acceptance  in 
writing. 

Compared  with  the  previous  national  regulatory  regime,  the  right  to 
withdraw from a contract has been  extended from 10 to 14 working days. 
The  submission  of  a  written  form  is  no  longer  required  and  it  is  sufficient 
for  the  consumer  to  use  any  type  of  statement  to  exercise  their  right  of 
withdrawal, provided that this is unequivocal. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article 3(4) – national provisions transposing the Directive shall not be 
applied  to  off-premises  contracts  where  payment  to  be  made  by  the 
consumer is less than €50 

•  Article 6(7) – the trader is required to provide contractual information if 

the consumer requests it 

•  Regulatory choices defined in art 6(8 and art 7(4) are not used in Italy 

•  Article  8(6)  –  where  a  distance  contract  is  to  be  concluded  by 
telephone,  the  written  confirmation  of  the  contract  is  a  mandatory 

218 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Italy 

requirement. 

Sources of 
information 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

•  Article  9(3)    –  no  promissory  note  with  a  due  date  less  than  15  days 

after delivery of goods  

•  DECRETO LEGISLATIVO  21 febbraio 2014, n. 21   Attuazione della 

direttiva 2011/83/UE sui diritti dei consumatori, recante modifica delle 
direttive 93/13/CEE e 1999/44/CE e che abroga le direttive 85/577/CEE 
e 97/7/CE. (14G00033)   (GU Serie Generale n.58 del 11-3-2014), 
available at: 
http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2014/3/11/14G00033/sg 
[accessed July 2016] 

•  Eversheds,  2016, 

“Consumer  Rights  Directive”,  available  at: 

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consume
r-rights-directive.page [accessed July 2016] 

•  The  Main  Innovations  Of  The  Italian  Legislative  Decree  No.  21/2014 
Transposing Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights, Anna Argentati. 
Rivista  Italiana  Antitrust  /  Italian  Antitrust  Review,  ISSN: 2284-3272. 
www.iar.agcm.it/article/view/10207  

•  Alberto De Franceschi, 'Implementation of the Consumer Rights 

Directive Italy' (2014) 3 Journal of European Consumer and Market 
Law, Issue 2, pp. 123–126.  

'The EU Digital Single Market Strategy in Light of the Consumer Rights 
Directive', Alberto De Franceschi . ISSN: 2364-4710 ID: EuCML2014020 
https://www.kluwerlawonline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=EuC
ML2014020 

Latvia 

In  Latvia,  the  CRD  has  been  implemented  by  making  amendments  to  a 
pre-existing  piece  of  legislation,  the  Consumer  Rights  Protection  Law 
(“CRPL”). The amendments were adopted by parliament on 24 April 2014. 
The main provisions came into effect on 13 June 2014. Amendments which 
implement other parts of the Directive came into force on 1 July 2014 and 
1 January 2015 (depending which part of the CRD).  

There  was  already  a  14  calendar  day  cooling-off  period  in  Latvia  so  there 
was no change in the length of the right of withdrawal period. However, the 
implementation  of  the  CRD  has  required  amendments  to  the  CRPL  that 
have  meant  changes  since  previously  in  Latvia,  consumer  refunds  for 
distance sales had to be made as soon as possible and at the latest within 
30  days  of  the  date  that  the  consumer  informed  the  trader  through  a 
cancellation notice. 

Section 12 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law (CRPL)  of the Republic 
of  Latvia  and    Cabinet  Regulation  No.207  ‘Regulations  Regarding  Distance 
Contracts’  state  that  consumers  may  exercise  the  right  of  withdrawal  and 
unilaterally withdraw from the contract within a time period of 14 calendar 
days. 

With  regard  to  pre-contractual  information,  the  CRPL  sets  out  all  the 
information  that  the  trader  is  required  to  supply  to  the  consumer  and 
mirrors the requirements in the Directive. The cancellation period will only 
be extended to one year for both distance and off-premises contracts if the 
trader has failed to inform the consumer about his right to cancel and the 

219 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Latvia 

applicable cancellation terms. Prior to the implementation of the Directive, 
the cancellation period was extended for distance sales to 3 months for the 
failure to provide written information (or in a similar format) regarding the 
name  of the trader, their registration number,  address, the characteristics 
of  the  goods,  services  or  digital  content,  the  price,  delivery  costs,  the 
payment and delivery procedure and information on cancellation rights. For 
doorstep  selling,  there  was  no  extended  cancellation  period  for  failure  to 
supply such information. 

The requirement to provide pre-contractual information on digital content is 
a new requirement in Latvia. Additionally, the ban on “pre-ticked” boxes on 
websites  is  also  a  new  requirement.  The  prohibition  of  excessive 
credit/debit card charges for B2C transactions) is also a new requirement in 
Latvia. 

Regulatory 
choices 

In  terms  of  regulatory  choices  that  have  to  be  reported  to  the  EC  under 
Article  29,  the  only  Article  that  Latvia  has  made  use  of  is  Article  3(4). 
Latvia does not apply the provisions laid down for off-premises contracts to 
contracts  with  a  value  below  EUR  35.  It  has  not  used  other  regulatory 
choices. 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Lithuania 

The Lithuanian Law on Consumer Protection109 (10 November 1994, No. I-
657)  defined  consumer  rights,  spheres  of  the  protection  of  consumer 
rights,  establishes  the  institutional  framework  of  consumer  protection  and 
the  competence  of  the  authorities,  regulates  relations  between  consumers 
and  sellers,  suppliers  of  services,  and  provides  an  out-of-court  dispute 
resolution  procedure  and  the  liability  for  violations  of  the  legal  acts 
regulating protection of consumer rights.  

The  Civil  Code  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  (Civilinis  kodeksas/  Civil 
Code)  establishes  key  provisions  related  to  consumer  contracts,  the 
rights  and  obligations  of  consumers  and  sellers/service  providers, 
timeshare  regulations,  provisional  list  of  unfair  terms  in  consumer 
contracts,  and  lays  down  provisions  related  to  distance  selling,  return  and 
replacement  of  goods  and  contracts  concluded  away  from  business 
premises. 

Lithuania implemented  the  CRD  by  amending  the  Lithuanian  Civil  Code110, 
which  came  into  force  on  13.06.2014.  Most  of  the  new  provisions  have 
been  transposed  in  an  additional  chapter  (XVIII1  chapter)  “Consumer 
Contracts”  of  the  sixth  book  of  the  Civil  Code  (see  Article  6.228).  In 
addition, Art 6.359 (the transfer of risk) has been added to the Civil Code. 

Most of the new provisions have been transposed in one additional chapter 
(XVIII  –  chapter  1)  “Consumer  Contracts”  of  the  sixth  book  of  the  Civil 
Code  (in  Article  6.228).  In  addition,  Art  6.3591  (the  transfer  of  risk)  has 
been added. Articles 6.2281–6.2282 of the Civil Code define the concept of 
consumer contract and other definitions and the scope of the application of 

109 1994 www.litlex.lt/litlex/eng/frames/laws/Documents/159.HTM and 2007 

http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=306060 

110 The Law on Amendment of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania of 19.12.2013 No XII-700, available 
at  the  Website  of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  (the  data  base  of  the  legal  acts,  2014-01-07 
Nr.2014-00069), www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=463433&p_tr2=2> 

220 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Lithuania 

the provisions of the Code (Art 2-3 CRD). Art 6.2283 of the Code stipulates 
the mandatory nature of the consumer law provisions and provides that the 
burden  of  proof  for  fulfilling  the  information  duties  rests  on  the  business 
(Art 25 CRD).  

Art 6.2286 of the Civil Code provides the general information requirements 
for  consumer  contracts  (Art  5  CRD),  while  Art  6.2287  regulates  specific 
information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts  (Art  6 
CRD).  Art  6.2288–6.2289  of  the  Code  contains  the  concepts  of  distance 
contract  and  of  off-promises  contract  as  well  as  formal  requirements  for 
those  (Art  7-8  CRD).  Art  6.22810–6.22811  addresses  the  right  of 
withdrawal  from  a  distance  or  off-premises  contract  and  contains  detailed 
provisions on the exercise, effects of the right of withdrawal and exceptions 
from the right of withdrawal (Art 9-16 CRD). Art 6.22812 of the Civil Code 
applies to e-commerce transactions.  

The  Civil  Code  was  amended  to  reflect  the  transposition  into  national 
legislation  of  the  CRD’s  provisions.  The  wording  in  the  Lithuanian  Code 
differs  somewhat  from  the  wording  of  the  Directive  itself.  The  Lithuanian 
Code  states  that  the  consumer  will  be  granted  a  right  to  cancel  the 
agreement  (for  failure  by  the  trader  to  provide  sufficient  pre-contractual 
information)  within  a  reasonable  time  period  and  will  be  able  to  claim  a 
refund and compensation. However, in case of distance sales, if the trader 
fails  to  provide  information  on  the  consumer’s  right  to  cancel  the 
agreement, then the consumer has a right to cancel the agreement within 
the period of 12 months following conclusion of the contract. 

In  terms  of  key  changes,  the  Lithuanian  Code  extends  the  previous 
legislation  in  Lithuania  which  provided  the  consumer  with  a  cooling  off 
period  of  7  working  days  for  distance  sales  and  doorstep  sales  contracts. 
With regard to refunds, The Lithuanian Code changes the previous position 
where consumer refunds had to be made within 15 days of the day that the 
consumer  gave  notice  to  cancel  to  the  trader.  The  requirement  that  a 
refund must include delivery costs is a new requirement in Lithuania. 

Overall,  although  there  are  some  new  requirements  (pan  on  pre-ticked 
boxes,  the  extension  of  the  Directive's  scope  to  digital  content,  rules  on 
delivery  to  the  consumer,  which  are  new  requirements,  the  Lithuanian 
Code is not significantly different to the previous Lithuanian law. However, 
there  are  some  differences.  For  instance,  Lithuanian  consumers  are  now 
entitled to receive comprehensive and accurate information concerning the 
terms  under  which  goods  and  services  are  purchased,  their  quality, 
directions  for  use,  a  description  of  the  warranties  and  exchange  period, 
procedures  for  the  termination  of  the  contract  for  goods  or  services,  and 
other relevant information that has significance to the consumer.   

The duty to provide such information to the consumer and its accuracy are 
the  responsibility  of  the  trader  supplying  the  good,  service  or  digital 
content. If the consumer was not provided with relevant information and/or 
it was inaccurate or fraudulent, and, as a result, the goods or services were 
not  fit  for  their  intended  use,  the  consumer  may  refer  to  the  State  Food 
and  Veterinary  Service  or  State  Non-Food  Inspection  or  to  the  court  for 
protection of its infringed rights.   

Regulatory 
choices  

•  Article 3(4) – national provisions transposing the Directive shall not be 
applied to off-premises contracts for which the payment to be made by 
the consumer is less than 100 LTL (approximately 29 EUR). 

•  Article 6(7) – before the conclusion of a contract, other than a distance 

221 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Lithuania 

contract  or  an  off-premises  contract,  the  trader  shall  provide  the 
consumer with the information in the State language [of the Republic of 
Lithuania] (Lithuanian). 

•  Article 7(4) shall not be applied. 

•  Article  8(6)  –  where  a  distance  contract  is  to  be  concluded  by 
telephone,  the  trader  shall  confirm  the  offer  to  the  consumer  on  a 
durable  medium.  The  contract  shall  be  concluded  only  when  the 
consumer has signed the offer or has sent his written consent.   

Sources of 
information 

•  The Lithuanian Law on Consumer Protection - 

http://www.litlex.lt/litlex/eng/frames/laws/Documents/159.HTM (legal 
text in EN) 

• 

Implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive: Lithuania - Vytautas 
Mizaras, Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und 
Verbraucherrecht, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 
(2014) 3:200–201 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Luxembourg 

The  Law  of  2  April  2014  implements  Directive  2011/83/EU  of  25  October 
2011  on  consumer  rights  and  amends  the  recently  inaugurated  (2011) 
Luxembourg Consumer Code. 

The key differences between the previous national consumer legislation and 
the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

•  The  most  significant  consequence  of  the  CRD  is  that  the  previous 
general prohibition of off-premises contracts is abandoned. Pursuant to 
the  new  Article  L.222-8  of  the  Consumer  Code,  any  trader  may  now 
enter  into  a  contract  with  a  consumer  outside  a  business  premises 
following canvassing or seeking orders. 

• 

Increased  transparency  for  consumer  contracts  (Article  6):  The  Law 
increases  previous  information  requirements  and  establishes  new 
formal requirements.  

•  New  formal  requirements  for  off-premises  and  distance  contracts 
(Articles 7 and 8): post-CRD, traders in Luxembourg must comply with 
new formal requirements relating to: (i) the provision of the information 
in  the  bullet-point  above,  (ii)  the  placing  of  the  order  and  (iii)  the 
confirmation of the concluded contract. 

•  Harmonised  withdrawal  period  (Article  9):  The  law  previously  provided 
for  a  cooling  off  period  of  7  days  for  both  distance  sales  and  off-
premises sales. 

•  New withdrawal rights for ancillary contracts (Article 15): the automatic 

termination of ancillary contracts if the consumer exercises   his   right   
of   withdrawal   from   a   distance   or   an   off-premises contract is a 
new development in Luxembourg law: previously only consumer-credit-
related ancillary contracts could be cancelled after withdrawal. 

•  Rules on delivery (Article 18): the thirty-day delivery period previously 

222 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Luxembourg 

provided  for  in  Luxembourg  for  distance  contracts  is  extended  to  all 
sales contracts, unless otherwise agreed between the parties. 

•  Elimination  of  hidden  Internet  charges  (Articles  5  and  6)  and  the 
banning  of  pre-ticked  boxes  on  the  internet  (Article  22)  are  new 
requirements in Luxembourg law. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article  3(4)  –  Exemption  for  off-premises  contracts  where  payment  to 

be made by the consumer is less than €50. 

•  Article  8(6)  –  Requirement  of  written  confirmation  of  contracts 

concluded by telephone. This article applies. 

Other regulatory choices do not apply. 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Malta 

The Consumer Rights Directive was transposed into the Maltese legislative 
system  through  the  Consumer  Rights  Regulations  2013,  which  came  into 
force on 13 June 2014.  Consumer Rights Regulations repeals the Distance 
Selling Regulations (legal notice 186 of 2011).  Although the newly enacted 
regulations  address  off-premises  contracts,  the  Doorstep  Contracts  Act 
(Chapter 317 of the Laws of Malta) remains unchanged.   

Consumer  protection  legislation  is  relatively  new  in  Malta,  as  the  first  Act 
dealing specifically with consumer protection was the Consumer Affairs Act 
in  1994.    Such  legislation  was  later  amended  in  2000,  in  line  with  the 
process  of  accession  to  the  EU,  when  various  EU  consumer  protection 
directives were implemented. In this respect, the Maltese Government not 
only  introduced  the  minimum  requirements  as  defined  by  the  various  EU 
directives,  but  also  opted  to  go  beyond  those  minimum  requirements.  In 
other  words,  consumer  protection  in  Malta  was  already  advanced  before 
the transposition of the CRD.  

The  main  changes  compared  with  previous  legislation  are  summarized  as 
follows: 

•  On  information  when  buying  goods  or  services:  the  Consumer  Rights 
Regulations  strengthen  consumer  rights  when  buying  goods  and 
services  in  terms  of  the  level  of  information  consumers  should  be 
provided before buying, compared to the old legislation.  

• 

Information on digital content: this is a new requirement 

•  Right  of  withdrawal: in the  old  legislation  (Article  6  of  Distance  Selling 
Regulations), the right of cancellation was set to 15 days, starting from 
the  day  of  receipt  of  goods,  or  from  the  day  of  conclusion  of  the 
contract  in  case  of  services.  The  inclusion  of  a  withdrawal  form  is  also 
new. 

•  Prohibition of pre-ticked boxes on websites: this is a new requirement.  

•  Protection  of  costumers  against  hidden  charges  and  costs  while 

ensuring price transparency: this is a new requirement.  

•  Rules about delivery costs are strengthen: in the old legislation, in case 
of  distance  selling,  traders  were  already  obliged  to  inform  consumers 

223 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Malta 

about  “delivery  costs,  where  appropriate”  (Article  1(4d)).  The  new 
legislation strengthens such need of information. 

•  Rules about the delivery period: If the trader agrees to deliver the good 
within  a  specific  delivery  date  and  fails  to  carry  out  delivery  on  or 
before  the  agreed  date,  the  consumer  may  terminate  the  contract.  
When  no  specific  delivery  date  is  set,  trader  is  obliged  to  deliver  the 
goods within 30 days from the conclusion of the contract.  This is a new 
requirement.  

•  Ban  of  surcharges  when  paying  by  credit  card  or  other  means  of 

payment: this is a new requirement 

•  Telephone hotlines and basic telephone rate for the calls.  This is a new 

requirement 

•  Rules  about  inertia  selling,  as  set  out  in  the  CRD:  this  is  a  new 

requirement in Malta.  

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Art 3(4) –Malta has made use of this choice but the limit is set at 30 €. 

•  Art 6(7) – Malta has made use of this choice (either Maltese or English 

should be used). 

•  Art  8(6)  –requiring  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by 

telephone: Malta has made use of this choice. 

•  Art.  9(3)  –  prohibiting  to  collect  payment  in  off-premises  contracts 
during a given period:  Malta has made use of this choice; deposit can 
be collected only 14 days after the conclusion of the contract. 

Sources of 
information 

Consumer Rights Regulations 2013: 
http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=25
850&l=1  

Old legislation -  Distance Selling Regulations 2001: 
www.mccaa.org.mt/loadfile/04eea644-6bcd-4db4-b039-77f3a9d648f3 

Rebekah  Tanti-Dougall  (2014)    “Implementation  of  the  Consumer  Rights 
Directive: Malta”. Journal of European Consumer and Market Law, Issue 3, 
pp. 187–189 

Paul  Edgar  Micallef  (na)  The  Future  of  Consumer  Law  –  the  perspective 
from a small island state 

Mariosa  Vella  Cardona  (2014)  Your  rights  when  shopping  online, 
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20140102/business-
comment/Your-rights-when-shopping-online.501075 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Netherlands 

Certain  articles  of  the  Dutch  Civil  Code  were  amended 
in  the 
implementation of the Directive. The amended articles came into effect on 
13 June 2014.  

The key differences between the previous national consumer legislation and 
the provisions of the Directive are summarised as follows: 

• 

Increased transparency for consumer contracts (Articles 6 and 10): The 
new  pre-contractual  requirements  change  previous  legislation  which 
stated that the  cancellation period was 3 months on top of the  cooling 
off  period  of  7  days  for  failure  to  provide  sufficient  pre-contractual 

224 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Netherlands 

information. 

•  Harmonised  withdrawal  period  (Article  9):  Dutch  legislation  previously 
provided  that  the  cooling  off  period  for  off-premises  sales  (with  a 
minimum  value  of  EUR  34)  was  8  calendar  days  after  receipt  of  the 
product. For distance sales, the cooling off period was 7 working days. 

•  Better  refund  rights  (Article  13):  The  Dutch  Code  has  changed  the 
previous Netherlands position which was that consumer refunds had to 
be made as soon as possible, and in any case within 30 days of the day 
that the consumer gave notice to cancel to the trader. 

•  Rules  on  delivery  (Article  18):  Dutch  legislation  already  required  the 
trader  to  deliver  the  goods  within  30  calendar  days.  However,  the 
notice  which  is  required  to  put  the  seller  in  default  need  not  be  in 
writing  under  the  CRD,  where  it  would  have  to  be  under  previous  NL 
legislation (Articles 6:81 and 82 Dutch Civil Code). 

•  Passing  of  risk  (Article  20):  This  CRD  article  adds  to  the  pre-existing 
provisions of the Consumer Sales Directive. These provisions have been 
implemented in Title 7.1 of the Dutch Civil Code, where the provisions 
of  the  Consumer  Sales  Directive  had  also  been  implemented.  Before 
CRD  transposition,  Article  7:11  of  the  Civil  Code  provided  that  in  the 
case  of  a  consumer  sales  contract  where  the  parties  had  agreed  on 
transportation of the goods by the seller to the consumer’s house, risk 
would only pass when the consumer obtained the physical possession of 
the goods.  However, the parties could derogate  from this provision by 
an  individually  negotiated  term.  The  implementation  of  Article  20  CRD 
has  led  to  a  new  formulation  of  Article  7:11  and,  more  importantly, 
deleted the possibility for the parties to derogate from this provision by 
an individually negotiated term. 

•  Consumer protection for digital products; elimination of hidden Internet 
charges  (Articles  5  and  6),  banning  pre-ticked  boxes  (Article  22), 
elimination  of  surcharges  for  use  of  credit  cards  and  hotlines  (Articles 
19 and 21) are all new requirements in Dutch law. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article  3(4)  –  Exemption  for  off-premises  contracts  where  payment  to 

be made by the consumer is less than €50. 

•  Article  7(4)  –  The  Netherlands  has  opted  out  from  specifying  less 
onerous  pre-contractual  information  requirements  for  off-premises 
contracts  for  repairs  or  maintenance  performed  immediately  for  an 
amount not exceeding EUR 200. 

•  Article  8(6)  –  NL  opted  to  require  written  confirmation  of  contracts 

concluded by telephone (but with limited application). 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 

Poland 

The Directive was implemented in Poland by the Act dated 30 May 2014 on 
Consumer Rights111. 

With regard to the changes with previous legislation and the new provisions 

111  Sejm  of  the  Republic  of  Poland  (2014):    Act  dated  30  May  2014  on  Consumer  Right,  available  at 

https://uokik.gov.pl/download.php?plik=17819 

225 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Poland 

of the Directive, the new legislation sets out the following: 

•  On information requirements (Article 5 & 6 of the CRD): Under the Act, 
the  list  of  specific  information  that  has  to  be  made  available  for  both 
distance and other than distance and off-premises is much wider than it 
was previously (Article 3,8 and 9 and Article 8). In addition, in case of 
omission of information, the cancellation period prior to the current Act 
was 3 months which is significantly shorter than the 12 month currently 
given. 

• 

Information on digital content (Art 5 & 6). This is a new requirement in 
Poland  as  no  reference  to  digital  content  can  be  found  in  the  Act  of  2 
March 2000 on the protection of certain consumer rights. 

•  The  formal  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts.  The 
consumer  must  be  made  fully  aware  that  the  purchase  will  take  place 
through  a  button  clearly  indicating  that  the  good,  service  or  digital 
content will be purchased.   

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  for  distance  and  off-
premises contracts. This is a new requirement as the cooling off period 
for distance sales and doorstep sales was, prior to the Act, 10 days. The 
catalogue  of  exclusions  from  the  right  of  withdrawal  however  is  much 
wider compared with the previous act. 

• 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form.  This  is  a  new 
addition.  The  model  withdrawal  form  has  been  attached  to  the  Polish 
Act.112 

•  New rules on delivery and passing on the risk. The new Act clarifies the 
rules,  e.g.    the  trader  shall  reimburse  the  price  of  goods,  including 
delivery charges.  On the other hand the obligation for the consumer to 
cover  the  costs  for  returning  the  goods  has  been  clarified  as  well.  
However, the trader must inform the consumer about this obligation to 
bear the costs of returning the goods.   In addition, the time period for 
passing the risk to the consumer has been extended from 6 month to 1 
year.  

•  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation to 
contracts already concluded (Art 21). This is a new requirement. In the 
previous Act on the protection of certain consumer rights no information 
is provided on telephone charges.   

•  Elimination of surcharges for the use of credit cards and other means of 

payments. This is a new requirement in Poland. 

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes. This is a new requirement in Poland. 

•  Provision on inertia selling. This is a new requirement in Poland. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Poland has made use of the option to exclude contracts from the remit 
of the Act and set the value under which the legislation does not apply 
to 50 PLN. [This is around 12€]. 

•  Poland has made use of the option concerning language with links to 

two different laws which are the Polish Language Act (article 7 and 7a) 
and the Civil Code.  The Civil code has been amended to contain these 

112 

Taylor  Wessing 

(2016): 
http://poland.taylorwessing.com/en/consumer-act-brochure 

Act 

on 

Consumer 

Rights 

Brochure, 

available 

at 

226 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Poland 

language requirements through article 44(9) of the Consumer Rights 
Act.  

•  Art 8(6) requiring written confirmation of contracts concluded by 

telephone. Poland has made use of that option which can be found in 
article 20 of the Consumer Rights Act but only when the professional 
calls the consumer. 

Sources of 
information 

Chodkowski  M  (2014):    Better-informed  buyers,  harder-working  sellers, 
available at http://www.laszczuk.pl/en/15/publication 

European  Commission  (2016):    Information  on  the  USE  of  Regulatory 
at 
choices 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/overview_regulatory_choices.pdf 

available 

Article 

under 

CRD, 

29 

Schönherr (2015):  Poland: Traders' Obligations under the New Consumers 
at 
Protection 
http://www.schoenherr.eu/publications/publications-detail/poland-traders-
obligations-under-the-new-consumers-protection-act/ 

available 

Act, 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Wessing  Taylor  (2016):    Act  on  Consumer  Rights  Brochure,  available  at 
http://poland.taylorwessing.com/en/consumer-act-brochure 

Portugal 

The  Consumer  Rights  Directive  was  transposed  into  the  Portuguese 
legislative system by the Law Decree n. 24/2014 (Decreto-Lei n. 24/2014, 
de  14  de  fevereiro).    The  provisions  established  in  the  Decree  came  into 
force  starting  from  the  13  June  2014.    The  Law  Decree  n.  24/2014  also 
appointed  the  Economic  and  Food  Safety  Authority  -  ASAE  (Autoridade  de 
Segurança  Alimentar  e  Económica)  as  the  national  body  in  charge  of  the 
enforcement of the provisions on the Law decree. It is worth to remark that 
this  is  a  partial  transposition  because  the  Law  Decree  n.  24/2014  only 
applies  to  off-premises  and  distance  contracts.    The  CRD  provisions  about 
on-premises  contracts  such  those  in  Article  5  are  not  transposed  by  the 
Portuguese legislation.  

The  Law  Decree  n.  24/2014  was  later  partially  amended  by  the  Law  n. 
47/2014  (28  July).    Before  2014,  in  Portugal  consumer  rights  were 
protected by the Law n.  24/1996, 31 July.   

The  key  differences  between  the  previous  national  consumer  legislation 
(Law n. 24/1996) and the new provisions of the Directive as transposed by 
the Law Decree n. 24/2014 are summarised as follows: 

•  Pre-contractual  information:  compared  to  the  previous  regulatory 
regime, now traders must provide more information to the consumers, 
both  during  the  negotiation  and  the  conclusion  of  the  contract. 
Compulsory  information  concern  aspects  such  as  functionalities  and 
interoperability  in  case  of  digital  content,  or  information  regarding 
potential delivery restrictions as well as payment methods in case of e-
commerce.  

•  Right  of  withdrawal:  differently  to  the  previous  regulatory  regime,  the 
right of withdrawal is now regulated in the same way for both distance 
and  off-premises  contracts  (according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Law  n. 
24/1996, off-premises  contracts and distance  contracts  were  regulated 
separately).  The withdrawal period is established in 14 days and this is 

227 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Portugal 

a  new requirement in Portugal.  

•  Prohibition  of  additional  charges  (that  would  increase  the  cost  of  the 
good/service), if such charges were not previously agreed between the 
consumer  and  the  trader.    This  also  includes  the  ban  of  pre-ticked 
boxes. This is a new requirement.   

•  Delivery  rules,  as  defined  under  article  18  of  the  Directive  “the  trader 
shall deliver the goods by transferring the physical possession or control 
of  the  goods  to  the  consumer  without  undue  delay,  but  not  later  than 
30  days  from  the  conclusion  of  the  contract”.    This  is  a  new 
requirement.  

•  Provisions regarding communication by telephone, as defined by article 
21  of  the  Directive  “here  the  trader  operates  a  telephone  line  for  the 
purpose  of  contacting  him  by  telephone  in  relation  to  the  contract 
concluded,  the  consumer,  when  contacting  the  trader  is  not  bound  to 
pay more than the basic rate”.  This is a new requirement 

•  Prohibition of inertia selling, this is a new requirement introduced by 

the article 28 of the Law Decree n. 24/2014  

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article 3(4): Such regulatory choice applies only to subscription of 

periodical items for a limit of 40€.  

•  Art 6(7) –This option has been used and Portuguese language is 

required. 

•  Art 7(4) – Portugal decided not to apply it. 

•  Art 8(6) – requiring written confirmation of contracts concluded by 

telephone: Portugal has made use of this rule, but it does not apply if 
initial contact was made by the consumer. 

Sources of 
information 

Decreto-Lei n. 24/2014, de 14 de fevereiro:  
https://dre.tretas.org/dre/315492/#text  

Frade and Almeida (2016): Análise crítica da directiva dos direitos dos 
consumidores e da sua transposição: https://digitalis.uc.pt/pt-
pt/node/106201?hdl=33985  

Abreu Advogados (2014) O Novo Regime dos Contratos Celebrados a 
Distância e Fora do Estabelecimento Comercial 

A  Direção-Geral  do  Consumidor  (2014)  A  transposição  da  Diretiva  dos 
Direitos dos Consumidores (Diretiva 2011/83/CE): 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Romania 

The new directive 2011/83/UE is updating and cumulating the provisions of 
the  2  directives  referring  to  the  contracts  concluded  outside  commercial 
spaces  and  distance  contracts,  and  introduces  provisions  to  other  type  of 
contracts different from the ones mentioned previously. The project settles 
the  information  that  has  to  be  shared  with  the  consumer  in  the  pre-
contractual phase as well as for the contract negotiated outside commercial 
spaces,  distance  contracts  and  other  type  of  contracts  than  the  ones 
mentioned previously.   For distance contracts and for contracts negotiated 
outside  commercial  spaces  the  normative  project  foresees  the  information 
that  the  trader  has  to  give  to  the  consumer,  the  conditions  that  this 
contract has to fulfil and the “right of withdrawal” for consumers.  It is also 

228 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Romania 

covering  issues  regarding  delivery,  extra  taxes,  risk  transfer,  telephone 
communication  and  unrequested  selling.  Among  the  novelties  brought  by 
the draft legislation, mention those relating to: 

• 

• 

introducing  a  14  day  withdrawal  right  for  contracts  concluded  at 
distance and outside commercial spaces;  

introducing  a  withdrawal  form,  harmonized  that  can  be  used  by 
consumers  in  order  to  simplify  the  withdrawal  process  and  bring 
juridical security ;  

•  harmonization  of  rules  referring  to  the  moment  when  the  delivery 
should be done. Hence, if the parts do not agree with a certain delivery 
date  the  trader  should  deliver  the  goods  as  soon  as  possible,  but  not 
later than 30 days from concluding the contract.  Moreover, in the case 
that  the  trader  is  not  delivering/provides  the  services  in  this  term, 
under  certain  circumstances,  the  trader  receives  an  extra  reasonable 
time ;  

• 

traders  are  forbidden  from  charging  consumers  fees  that  exceed  the 
cost borne by the trader for the use of a given means of payment;  

•  as  for  risk  transfer  it  is  considered  that  a  consumer  has  received  the 

physic possession of the good at the moment of their receiving; 

• 

for  unrequested  selling,  the  consumer  is  exempted  from  any  payment 
regarding  the  goods  or  unrequested  services.  The  terminology  has 
changed in “withdrawal right” – due to the fact that the withdrawal right 
is under juridical law protecting the consumer   

•  Also, the “right to ceasing” the contract was introduced instead of “right 
of  termination”  of  the  contract,  due  to  the  fact  that  “termination” 
involves  the  failure  of  one  of  the  parts  and  this  is  against  the  spirit  of 
the European directive. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  3(4)  –  not  applying  the  CRD  to  off-  premises  contracts  ≤  50  €    

Romania has applied this art. With limit of 50EUR 

•  Art  6(7)  –  imposing  national  language  requirements  for  contractual 

information  yes, Romanian 

•  Art  6(8)  –  imposing  additional  information  requirements  under  e-

Commerce /Services Dir.  not used 

•  Art  7(4)  –  possibility  for  not  applying  the  light  information  regime  for 

repair works ≤ 200 €  not used 

•  Art  8(6)  –  requiring  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by 

telephone  applied by Romania 

•  Art.  9(3)  –  prohibiting  to  collect  payment  in  off-premises  contracts 

during a given period  not applied 

Sources of information: 

http://www.euroavocatura.ro/print2.php?print2=lege&idItem=216 

http://www.anpc.gov.ro/anpcftp/legislatie/servicii/Ordonanta%20nr.%201
30(r1)%20din%202000.html 

http://www.anpc.gov.ro/anpcftp/legislatie/Ordonanta%20nr.%2021(r2)%2
0din%201992.html 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

229 

Sources of 
information 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Romania 

content/RO/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31993L0013 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Slovakia 

The Consumer Rights Directive was transposed in Slovakia through Act No. 
102/2014 Coll. “On consumer protection in the sale of goods or provision of 
services  under  remote  agreements  or  agreements  executed  outside 
business  premises  of  the  Seller”.  The  Act  came  into  force  on  1st  May 
except for the articles 1-3, 6, 8 and 12 which came into force on 13th June 
2014.  Act  No.  102/2014  replaced  the  Act  No.  108/2000  on  consumer 
protection in doorstep selling and distance selling” 

The main changes in relation to previous legislation are the following:  

•  On  information  requirements  (Article  5  &  6  of  the  CRD):  Act  102  has 
provided  the  consumer  with  a  longer  cancellation  period  for  failure  by 
the  trader  to  provide  sufficient  pre-contractual  information,  which  was 
previously 3 months under Slovakian law 

• 

Information  on  digital  content  (Art  5  &  6).  Digital  products,  such  as 
computer programs, music or  videos  are  mentioned  only  in  relation  
to  the withdrawal  rights113  in the earlier Act 108/2000 but assumed to 
be delivered to the consumer in a tangible medium (as opposed to CDR 
where  the  digital  content  can  be  accessed  through  downloading, 
streaming, from a tangible medium or through any other means).  

•  Similar  provisions  (less  extensive  ones)  were  already  included  in  Act 
No.  108/2000  on  consumer  protection  in  doorstep  selling  and  distance 
selling.    

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  for  distance  and  off-
premises contracts. This is a new requirement as the cooling off period 
for  distance  sales  and  doorstep  sales  was  set  to  be  7  days  (Act 
108/2000, Paragraph 12(1) but working days only.       

• 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form.  This  is  a  new 
provision as no model and instructions on withdrawal were included. 

•  New rules on delivery and passing on the risk. Act 102 does not change 
the previous position in Slovakia, which was that a trader must satisfy 
an  order  within  30  days  from  the  day  he  received  the  order  from  the 
consumer.  

•  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation to 

contracts already concluded (Art 21). This is a new requirement. 

•  Elimination of surcharges for the use of credit cards and other means of 

payments. This is a new requirement.  

•  Better  refund  rights.  There  are  clearer  provisions  under  the  new  Act. 
The  regulatory  measures  concerning  consumer  refund  rights  were  less 
extensive  under  previous  Slovak  legislation.  Moreover,  Act  102/2014 
has  changed  Slovakian  legislation  as  previously  the  trader  had  to 
provide  the  consumer  with  a  refund  within  15  days  since  the  day  that 
the  consumer  gave  a  cancellation  notice  to  the  trader.  Under  the 

113  Paragraph  12  specified  that  if  these  products  were  taken  out  of  their  packaging,  the  consumer  could  no  

longer  withdraw from the contract. 

230 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Slovakia 

current law, this period is set to be 14 days 

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes. This is a new requirement. 

•  Provision on inertia selling. This is a new requirement.     

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Art  8(6)  requiring  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by 
telephone.  Slovakia  has  made  use  of  this  option  included  in  Section 
5(2). 

•  Slovakia has decided not to apply Art 7(4) 

•  Prohibition  on  the  trader  from  collecting  payment  from  the  consumer 

during a given period after the conclusion of the contract. Slovakia   has   
maintained      the      existing      national legislation.        It    is    included    in  
Act  No  10/2014  in Section 12(2): “During a sales action or before the 
expiry  of  the  withdrawal  period,  a    seller  may  nor  demand  or  receive 
performance  from  the  consumer  in  the  form  of  the  payment  of  all  or 
part  of  the  price  for  the  goods  or  service  offered;  the  same  shall  also 
apply in the case of a deposit on the price of goods or services or a fee 
connected with the conclusion of a contract or the delivery of the goods 
or  the  provision  of  a  service.  Nor  may  the  seller  encourage  the 
performance by the consumer referred to in the first sentence.” 

Sources of 
information 

Act 102/2014, available at: http://www.zakonypreludi.sk/zz/2014-102 
[accessed July 2016] 

ECC-net, September 2014, “Table of MS Having Transposed The Directive 
on Consumer Rights”, available at: http://www.europe-
consommateurs.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-
consommateurs/PDFs/PDF_EN/REPORT-_GUARANTEE/tableau_EN.pdf 
[accessed July 2016] 

Act No. 108/2000, available at: 
http://www.bezpecnynakup.sk/files/Zakon_108_2000_o_zasielkovom_pred
aji.pdf [accessed July 2016] 

2016, 

Eversheds, 
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consumer-
rights-directive.page [accessed July 2016] 

“Consumer  Rights  Directive”, 

available 

at: 

231 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Slovenia 

In  Slovenia  the  key  regulation  in  the  area  of  consumer  rights  is  the 
Consumer  Protection  Act  (Official  Gazette  of  RS,  No.  98/2004,  126/2007, 
86/2009,  78/2011,  38/2014),  which  regulates  consumer  rights  in  relation 
to  legal  entities.  The  Act  implements  several  EU  Directives  including 
Directive  84/450  and  97/55  (misleading  and  comparative  advertising), 
Directive  93/13  (unfair  terms  and  conditions  in  contracts  between 
consumers and enterprises), Directive 1999/44 (guarantee rules), Directive 
85/577 (protecting consumers in respect of contracts negotiated away from 
business  premises),  Directive  97/7  (protecting  consumers  in  respect  of 
distance contracts). 

Changes in the  organisation of the public administration led to  changes of 
the  authorities  responsible  in  the  field  of  consumer  legislation.  As  a  result 
the  adoption  of  the  new  Consumer  Protection  Act  on  21  December  2011 
abolished the Consumer Protection Office of the Republic of Slovenia, with 
its functions being assumed by the Ministry of Economic Development and 
Technology.  The  Ministry  was  appointed  to  act  as  the  single  liaison  office, 
and  is  responsible  for  implementation  of  the  Regulation  at  the  national 
level.  The  Ministry  works  at  national  level  with  the  Market  Inspectorate, 
which  is  responsible  for  overseeing  most  laws  that  protect  consumers' 
interests.  The  Consumer  Protection  Act  specifies  the  role  of  Market 
Inspectorate as a surveillance authority for market activities.  

The  Consumer  Protection  Act  also  contains  the  transposition  of  other  EU 
regulations  on  unfair  advertising  (including  the  rules  on  comparative  and 
misleading  advertising),  guarantees  (including  2-year  guarantees  and 
commercial guarantees), and regulations linked to the transposition  of the 
CRD  relating  to  “distance  contracts”  and  contracts  negotiated  away  from 
business  premises.  The  most  relevant  changes  occurred  in  the  consumer 
protection as a result of the transposition of the Consumer Rights Directive 
can be summarised as follows: 

•  With  regard  to  information  requirements  (i.e.  Articles  5  and  6),  after 
the transposition of the CRD into national legislation a trader is required 
to provide some additional information before the consumer is bound by 
a (distance or off-premises) contract. 

•  The  main  rule  related  to  the  right  of  withdrawal  (Article  9)  has  not 
changed. Before the transposition of the CRD into national legislation a 
consumer  has  already  had  a  period  of  14  days  to  withdraw  from  a 
distance or off-premises contract. 

•  The  omission  of  information  of  the  right  of  withdrawal  (Article  10)  has 
changed:  if  the  trader  does  not  provide  the  consumer  with  the 
information  on  the  right  of  withdrawal,  the  withdrawal  period  was 
prolonged  from  3  months  to  12  months  from  the  end  of  the  initial 
withdrawal period. 

•  The  period  in  which  the  trader  shall  reimburse  all  payments  received 
from  the  consumer  (Article  13(1))  was  shortened  from  30  days  to  “in 
any event not later than 14 days from the day on which he is informed 
of  the  consumer’s  decision  to  withdraw  from  the  contract.”  Before  the 
implementation  of  the  CRD  there  was  no  provision  that  required  the 
trader  to  reimburse  using  the  same  means  of  payment  of  the 
consumer. 

•  With regard to Article 18 (i.e. rules on delivery), a similar provision on 
the  termination  of  the  contract  already  existed  in  national  legislation 
(Code  of Obligations) before the transposition of the CRD into national 

232 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Slovenia 

legislation.  However,  there  was  no  provision  requiring  the  trader  to 
deliver  the  goods  by  transferring  the  physical  possession  or  control  of 
the goods to the consumer without undue delay, but not later than 30 
days from the conclusion of the contract, if not agreed otherwise. 

•  The  rules  on  the  passing  of  risk  (Article  20)  also  changes:  the  risk  of 
loss of or damage has  been  shifted from  consumer to the trader  when 
delivering  goods  to  the  carrier  if  the  carrier  was  not  commissioned  by 
the consumer. 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Article  3(4)  –  National provisions are transposing the  Directive are not 
applied  to  off-premises  contracts  where  payment  to  be  made  by  the 
consumer is less than €20 

•  Article  6(7)  –  Slovenia  has  made  use  of  this  regulatory  choice, 
requesting that the requirements for contractual information is provided 
in the national language. 

•  Article  7(4)  –  Slovenia  decided  to  make  use  of  this  article,  thus  does 

not apply the light information regime for repair works ≤ €200 

•  Article  8(6)  –  Requiring  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by 

telephone. This option has been used in Slovenia. 

Sources of 
information 

East Legal Team briefing note available at http://east-legal.com/consumer-
protection-in-slovenia/ 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Spain 

The Directive was implemented in Spain on 28 March by virtue of Law 
3/2014 which entered into force on 13 June 2014. Law 3/2014 amends the 
revised text of the General Law on the Protection of Consumers and Users 
and other supplementary laws, approved by Royal Legislative Decree 
1/2007 of 16 November. 

With regard to the changes with previous legislation and the new provisions 
of the Directive, Law 3/2014 sets the following: 

•  On  information  requirements  (Article  5  &  6  of  the  CRD):  the  law  sets 
the  same  information  requirements  as  in  the  Directive,  with  minor 
changes from those in the earlier legislative RD 1/2007. There is a new 
addition  of  contracts  for  the  supply  of  water,  gas  and  electricity.  The 
new  law  does  not  distinguish  between  premises  and  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts  however.  It  is  worth  noting  that  in  the  cases  of 
omission of information on the right of withdrawal, the new law follows 
the  Directive  (in  line  with  Article  10  of  the  CRD)  and  extends  the 
withdrawal  period  to  12  months  from  the  end  of  the  initial  withdrawal 
period. Prior to this law, the period was only extended by 3 months. 

• 

Information on digital content (Art 5 & 6). This is a new requirement in 
Spain. 

•  The formal requirements for distance and off-premises contracts. This is 

a new requirement in Spain. 

•  Fully  harmonised  14  days'  withdrawal  period  for  distance  and  off-
premises  contracts.  Law  3/2014  (Art.  71)  has  changed  Spanish  law  as 
the  previous  cooling  off  period  was  7  working  days  for  distance  sales 
and 7 calendar days for doorstep sales. 

• 

Introduction  of  an  EU-wide  model  withdrawal  form.  This  is  a  new 
addition. The consumer is given the choice of using an identical form as 
the one in the Directive, also annexed to the law. 

•  New  rules  on  delivery  and  passing  on  the  risk.  New  requirement  in 

Spain and the same as that of the Directive. 

•  The "basic rate" requirement for consumer telephone lines in relation to 
contracts  already  concluded  (Art  21).  This  is  a  new  requirement  in 
Spain. 

•  Elimination of surcharges for the use of credit cards and other means of 
payments. This is a new requirement (Art. 60b) and the same as that of 
the Directive. 

•  Better  refund  rights.  Law  3/2014    (Art.  76)  has  changed  the  law  in 
Spain  as  previously  consumer  refunds  needed  be  made  as  soon  as 
possible, and in any case within 30 days of  the day that the consumer 
gave  notice  to  cancel  to  the  trader  (rather  than  the  newly  established 
limit of 14 days under the CRD)  

•  Banning pre-ticked boxes. This is a new requirement 

•  Provision on inertia selling. This is a new requirement (Art. 66). 

Regulatory 
choices 

•  Spain  has  not  applied  the  exemption  for  contracts  under  €50  (Article 

3(4)). 

•  Spain  has  introduced  language  requirements  and,  at  a  minimum, 

information shall be provided in Spanish (Article 98) 

•  Article  6(8)  and  additional  information  requirements.  This  option  has 

234 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Spain 

not been used. 

•  Art 7(4) – possibility for applying the light information regime for repair 

works ≤ 200 €. It was decided not to apply this paragraph. 

•  Art  8(6)  requiring  written  confirmation  of  contracts  concluded  by 
telephone.  This  option  has  been  used  in  cases  where  the  trader 
contacts a consumer or user by telephone (Art. 98). Moreover the same 
article  forbids  phone  calls  to  be  made  before  9  am  or  later  than  21 
hours or holidays or  weekends. The  consumer  will only be bound  once 
she has signed the offer or sent their agreement in writing on paper, by 
fax, email or SMS,. A sound recording of the consumer will not serve as 
evidence of consent. 

•  Art.  9(3)  allowing  MS  to  prohibiting  to  collect  payment  in  off-premises 

contracts during a given period. This option has not been used. 

Sources of 
information 

http://www.elderecho.com/tribuna/mercantil/ley_de_los_consumidores-
derechos_de_los_consumidores_11_682555001.html 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-
marketing/files/regulatory_choices_es_crd_en.pdf 

Consumer  rights  directive  Multijurisdictional  guide  (second  edition) 
http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/sectors/consumer/consumer-
rights-directive.page 

Ley 3/2014, de 27 de marzo, por la que se modifica el texto refundido de la 
Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios y otras leyes 
complementarias,  aprobado  por  el  Real  Decreto  Legislativo  1/2007,  de  16 
de  noviembre.  http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2014-
3329 

REAL  DECRETO  LEGISLATIVO  1/2007,  de  16  de  noviembre,  por  el  que  se 
aprueba  el  texto  refundido  de  la  Ley  General  para  la  Defensa  de  los 
complementarias. 
Consumidores 
https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/11/30/pdfs/A49181-49215.pdf 

Usuarios 

leyes 

otras 

y 

y 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

Sweden 

Sweden had a long tradition of consumer protection prior to its accession to 
the  EU  in  1995.  The  original  legislation  was  the  Swedish  Consumer  Sales 
Act  (SFS  1990:932),  the  Konsumentköplagen.  There  have  been  a  number 
of changes made to the Act to bring it into line with the CRD, as set out in 
the amended Swedish Consumer Sales Act (SFS 2014:11).  

The  new  rules  include  stricter  requirements  with  regard  to  contracts  that 
are entered into via a trader’s web page. A consumer shall be bound by the 
agreement only if he has expressly agreed to pay for the goods or services. 
If an order is made by clicking on a button, it should be clear that the order 
imposes an obligation to pay. This information should be  on the button or 
immediately  adjacent  to  it.  If  a  consumer  does  not  click  on  a  button,  or 
take a similar action, then they will not be bound by the order. 

New  rules  have  also  been  introduced  regarding  sales  of  online  digital 
content. The rules concern the conditions relating to the right of refund and 
how a waiver for the right to a refund shall be made. A written confirmation 
of purchases sent to customers before delivery of the order shall include an 
explicit  statement  that  such  a  right  has  been  waived  (if  that  is  the  case 

235 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Sweden 

when  such  a  waiver  has  been  made  by  the  consumer  e.g.  by ticking  a 
specific  box.  New  rules  were  introduced  regarding  traders’  obligations  to 
provide  specific  information  to  consumers  before  any  purchase  of  digital 
content. 

Unless  otherwise  provided  for  in  the  contractual  agreement,  an  item  of 
purchase  is  to  be  delivered  within  a  ”reasonable  time”  of  the  purchase 
(Section  5  of  the  Consumer  Sales  Act).  The  act  states  that  the  goods, 
unless  otherwise  provided  in  the  agreement,  shall  be  delivered  ”without 
delay”  and  within  30  days  of  the  agreement  being  entered  into.  If  the 
business requires a longer delivery time than 30 days, it must be expressly 
agreed with the consumer.  

There  are  some  additional  rights  in  Sweden  that  go  beyond  the  minimum 
requirements in the CRD. Sweden has chosen to make use of the option in 
Article  3(4);  see  Government  Bill  No  2013/14:15  p.  39,  and  Chapter  2 
Section  1(3)  of  the  Act  on  distance  sales  and  off-premises  contracts 
(2005:59).  Consumers  in  Sweden  have  a  period  of  36  months  (compared 
to  24  months  in  other  Member  States)  to  claim  an  exchange  or  refund  in 
cases  of  faulty  goods  (under  certain  circumstances).114  In  addition, 
consumers have been given the right to rescind a contract if the consumer, 
prior to the conclusion of the agreement, informed the business that supply 
of the goods on the stated day is of crucial importance and business fails to 
deliver  on  this  day,  or  if  the  business  explained  that  it  does  not  intend  to 
deliver the goods. A clarification to this end was introduced into Section 13 
of  the  Swedish  Consumer  Sales  Act.    Sweden  has  however  chosen  not  to 
make use of the options in Articles 6(7), 6(8), 7(4), 8(6) and 9(3). 

A  further  issue  concerns  the  leveraging  of  additional  fees  for  consumers 
purchasing  goods  and  services  with  a  credit  card.  Under  the  CRD,  traders 
may  only  leverage  the  fees  levied  on  them  by  credit  card  companies. 
However, in Sweden, such payment charges are not allowed.115 

Regulatory 
choices 

Sweden  has  chosen  to  make  use  of  the  option  in  Article  3(4);  see 
Government  Bill  No  2013/14:15  p.  39,  and  Chapter  2  Section  1(3)  of  the 
Act  on  distance  sales  and  off-premises  contracts  (2005:59).  The  limit  in 
Sweden for excluding contracts of the remit of the transposing legislation is 
around €43 (400SEK).  

Sweden  has  chosen  not  to  make  use  of  the  options  in  Articles  6(7),  6(8), 
7(4), 8(6) och 9(3). 

Sources of 
information 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d6328f6d-8183-4409-
800e-e77fbfc133ad  

http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/en/EU-legislation/directives/  

EC Consumer Law Compendium: The Consumer Acquis and its 
transposition in national legislation by Hans Schulte-Nölke, Christian Twigg-
Flesner, Martin Ebers 

114 http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/globalassets/rapporter/checklista_for_naringsidkare.pdf 
115 http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/globalassets/rapporter/checklista_for_naringsidkare.pdf 

236 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Previous 
situation 
and 
changes 
compared 
with 
previous 
legislation 

UK 

The provisions of the CRD were originally implemented through the: 

•  Payment Surcharges Regulations 2012, which took effect in April 2013. 

•  The  Consumer  Contracts  Regulations  2013  (SI  2013  No.  3134),  which 
implement  the  information  and  cancellation  requirements  of  the 
Directive.  The  Regulations  came  into  force  on  13th  June  2014  i.e.  by 
the deadline stipulated in the CRD. 

However, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”)116 subsequently came into 
force  in  October  2015.  The  aim  of  the  CRA  2015  is  to  create  a  simple 
framework  of  consumer  law  across  all  sectors  by  consolidating  and 
modernising  UK  legislation  to  provide  protection  and  rights  for  consumers 
into  a  single  act.    It  also  brings  into  effect  certain  online  rules  from  the 
2013 Regulations into all consumer contracts.  Digital content is addressed 
in  the  CRD.  Digital  content  supplied  to  a  customer  (or  supplied  for  free 
alongside another service) should be of satisfactory quality according to the 
expectations of a reasonable person.  

The  main  changes  compared  with  previous  legislation  relating  to  distance 
and online selling are that: 

•  Digital  content  was  introduced  as  a  new  distinct  category  of  product 
alongside goods and services that must meet a minimum standard117.  

•  Extending  the  "cooling-off  period"  for  consumers  (the  “right  of 

withdrawal” to change their mind from 7 to 14 days 

•  Reducing the period for refunding customers from 30 to 14 days 

•  Making  it  a  requirement  that  "pay"  buttons  on  traders’  websites  must 
clearly  signpost  the  customer’s  obligation  to  pay  rather  than  simply 
‘order’ 

•  A  prohibition  on  pre-ticked  boxes  on  traders’  websites  meaning  up-

selling must be agreed to 

•  A  maximum  30-day  window  for  the  delivery  of  goods  and  services, 

unless the customer agrees otherwise and 

•  A ban on premium rate helplines: the basic rate must be charged. 

The  CRA  also  extends  consumer  rights  that  were  inherent  to  the  physical 
purchase  of  goods  to  digital  content  and  to  goods  and  services  bought 
online. The requirements that goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for 
purpose  and  meet  the  expectations  of  the  consumer  were  already  implied 
in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in relation to trader-to-consumer contracts. 
This has also been incorporated into the CRA. 

Regulatory 
choices 

With  regard  to  those  Articles  of  the  CRD  where  there  are  regulatory 
choices, in the UK, Article 3(4) will be applied in part. Chapter IV provisions 
will  apply  to  off-premises  contracts  for  less  than  50  Euros.    Under  the 
implementing  regulations  such  transactions  will  be  exempt  from  the 

116  The  Consumer  Rights  Act  in  the  UK  has  consolidated  eight  pieces  of  separate  consumer  legislation  into  a 
single piece of legislation. Among the pieces of legislation that have been combined are the CRD, the Unfair 
Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Sale of Goods Act 1979 
and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. It brings greater consistency to consumer protection rules 
that had previously been spread across a wide range of different Acts and Regulations. 

117 This was designed to address the problem that previously, digital content embedded for sale as a tangible 
good (e.g. a DVD) was protected whereas consumers were not covered for the purchase of intangible goods 
(e.g. MP3s purchased via app's).  

237 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

UK 

information  and  cancellation  requirements  of  chapters  II  and  III.  With 
regard to Article 6(8), energy providers in the UK operate under a licensing 
regime  subject  to  the  oversight  of  the  Gas  and  Electricity  Markets 
Authority.  Energy  providers  supplying  energy  to  consumers  are  subject  to 
enhanced  information  requirements  to  ensure  the  efficient  functioning  of 
the energy market. 

Sources of 
information 

www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/digital-content-under-the-
consumer-rights-act-2015-20151006  

http://www.osborneclarke.com/connected-insights/campaigns/how-
consumer-rights-directive-being-implemented-across-europe/ - note 
provides cross-comparative overview 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a86e26b5-2c03-4264-
9cd8-1ce16ca7532e  

Consumer Rights Act 2015 by Lorraine Conway, House of Commons 
BRIEFING PAPER Number SN 6588, 1 October 2015, 
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN0658
8 

Regulatory impact assessment undertaken by BIS in the UK in 2012 , 

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31
357/12-961-supply-of-digital-content-impact.pdf) 

238 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Annex 2: Summary statistics online survey 

A2.1 Summary statistics of responses by MS 

The  following  tables  show  the  number  of  responses  by  MS.    Note  that  Table  A2-1 
presents  the  number  of  complete  responses  from  consumer  &  trade  associations, 
competent  authorities  and  ECCs  by  number  (as  due  to  the  lower  number  of  them 
presentation  as  percentages  could  be  misleading).  Table  A2-2  on  the  other  hand 
presents  the  number  of  responses  from  consumers  and  traders  as  percentages  (as  the 
number of responses is considerably larger).  

Table A2-1: Completed responses by country of residence (Q 1) 

Country 

Consumer 
associations 

Trade 
associations 

Competent 
authorities 

ECCs 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Lithuania 

Malta 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

3 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

5 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

239 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Consumer 
associations 

Trade 
associations 

Competent 
authorities 

ECCs 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

1 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

0 

6 

2 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

2 

Table A2-2: Completed responses by country of residence (Q 1) 

Country 

Consumers Percentage 

Traders Percentage 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

0% 

2.0% 

5.1% 

0% 

13% 

4.7% 

1.2% 

0% 

0.4% 

2.7% 

3.5% 

10% 

0% 

1.6% 

52% 

8.5% 

1.4% 

0% 

0.4% 

1.1% 

0% 

1.1% 

0.7% 

2.5% 

5.3% 

1.4% 

0% 

0.4% 

240 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Country 

Consumers Percentage 

Traders Percentage 

Italy 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Total  

3.9% 

7.1% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

2.7% 

9.0% 

0.8% 

7.1% 

7.1% 

0.4% 

1.2% 

0.8% 

15% 

3.5% 

0% 

0.4% 

0% 

0.4% 

9.5% 

2.8% 

1.4% 

0.4% 

1.1% 

0% 

1.4% 

1.4% 

3.2% 

100% 

100% 

Notes:  Percentages given to two significant figures.  

A2.2. Summary statistics for consumers 

A total of 255 complete responses from consumers were received.  55% of respondents 
were female and 44% were male.  Most of the respondents were within the 25 to 39 age 
group.  42.5 % of respondents held a college or university degree and 12.5% completed 
their education at elementary level. 

241 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Table A2-3: Consumers’ completed responses by age and employment status (Q 
25/26) 

Age 

Employment 

Age group 

% 

Current status  

% 

15-17 

18-24 

25-39 

40-54 

+55 

<1% 

Self-employed 

6.9% 

Employed 

57.1% 

Full education 

17.1% 

Unemployed 

17.6% 

- 

10.1% 

70.9% 

4.5% 

8.5% 

- 

One of the first questions to consumers was the modes of purchase used within the last 
2 years.   The majority of respondents had used retail outlets in their home country, as 
well  as  the  internet  (this  was  also  undertaken  cross-border).  Doorstep  selling  was  not 
popular  among  respondents  with  nearly  90%  stating  that  they  had  never  purchased 
goods or services in this way. Retail outlets and the internet are the preferred methods 
to buy by consumers and the latter is more prominent for cross-border purchases.  

Figure A2-1: Consumers: In the previous 2 years, which have you used to buy 
goods, services or digital content in your home country? (Q 2) 

Q2 In the previous 2 years, which of the following means have you 
used to buy goods, services or digital content, in your own 
country? (N = 347)

Retail outlets (339)

42%

28%

23%

5%

Internet (316)

24%

34%

29%

9%

Telephone (259)

6%

13%

15%

62%

Doorstep selling (289)

89%

Other (144)

15%

9%

71%

0%

10% 20%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

80% 90% 100%

Very frequently

Frequently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never

NB: % of less than 5% are not given to facilitate reading the chart  

242 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure A2-2: Consumers: In the previous 2 years, which have you used to buy 
goods, services or digital content from another EU country? (Q 2) 

Q2 In the previous 2 years, which of the following means have you used to 
buy goods, services or digital content, in other EU countries? (N = 293)

Retail outlets (232)

9%

10%

28%

25%

28%

Internet (243)

12%

21%

26%

13%

29%

Telephone (248)

Doorstep selling (257)

Other (132)

7%

92%

95%

89%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Very frequently

Frequently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never

NB: % of less than 5% are not given to facilitate reading the chart 

A2.3 Summary statistics of responses for traders 

A  total  of  157  complete  responses  were  received  from  traders.  Table  A2-4  shows  an 
indication  of  the  breakdown  of  responses  by  company  size.    Most  of  the  companies 
responding to the survey were SMEs (58.8% of the total). 

Table A2-4:  Trader completed responses by size (Q 2) 

Number of employees 

Percentage 

Self-employed 

SMEs <250 employees 

>250 employees 

N/a 

20.1% 

58.8% 

19.4% 

1.8% 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure A2-3 shows the turnover of the companies responding to the online survey. 

Figure A2-3: Traders, company’s turnover in 2015 (Q 24) 

Q24 Your company's turnover in 2015 (N=143)

 Less than 100,000 euros

100,000 to 500,000 euros

500,000 to 2 million  euros

22%

16%

15%

2 to 10 million euros

10%

10 to 50 million euros

6%

50 - 250 million

4%

Over 250 million euros

9%

 Prefer not to answer

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

In terms of the type of sales, 75% of traders sell goods and 37% sell services. Traders 
selling  digital  content  represented  8%  of  the  companies  responding  and  the  same 
percentage applied to free-online services.   

Figure A2-4: Traders focus of activities (Q 3) 

Q3 Which does your company sell or provide directly to 
consumers? (N = 238)

Goods (179)

75%

Services (87)

37%

Digital content (20)

8%

Free on-line services (18)

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

51.6% of all traders reported selling cross-border, with the remainder selling in domestic 
markets only. The vast majority of traders responding are engaged in distance selling by 
e-commerce both domestically and cross-border.   

244 

 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  A2-5:  Traders:  channels  used  to  sell  directly  to  consumers domestically 
(Q 8) 

Q8 Which of the following channels do you use to sell to consumers 
domestically? Estimate the percentage of your company’s annual turnover 
via the different channels (N = 99)

Bricks & mortar shops (86)

20%

9%

9%

20%

7%

35%

Doorstep-selling (70)

4%

10%

77%

E- commerce (93)

27%

12%

12%

32%

11%

6%

Telephone sales (72)

14%

72%

Mail order (72)

8%

6%

7%

11%

7%

61%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes and less than 10% of annual  turnover

Yes and 11% to 25% of annual  turnover

Yes and 26% to 50% of annual turnover

Yes and more than 50% of annual turnover

Yes but do not know %

Do not use this channel

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  A2-6:  Traders,  channels  used  to  sell  directly  to  consumers  in  other  EU 
countries? (Q 8) 

Q8 Which of the following channels do you use to sell to consumers in 
other EU countries? Estimate the percentage of your company’s annual 
turnover via the different channels (N = 51)

Bricks & mortar shops (43)

16%

5%

7%

9%

60%

Doorstep-selling (35)

9%

86%

E- commerce (44)

30%

9%

11%

34%

11%

5%

Telephone sales (35)

11%

Mail order (33)

9%

9%

9%

80%

70%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yes and less than 10% of annual  turnover

Yes and 11% to 25% of annual  turnover

Yes and 26% to 50% of annual turnover

Yes and more than 50% of annual turnover

Yes but do not know %

Do not use this channel

A2.4 Summary statistics for trade associations 

Representing  the  interests  of  traders,  national  trade  associations  were  also  canvassed 
about  the  implementation  of  the  CRD  in  their  countries.    There  were  a  total  of  23 
complete  responses  from  trade  associations.    Concerning  the  type  of  activities 
represented  by  the  associations,  89%  of  the  trade  associations  represented  traders 
selling goods and 68% represented traders offering services.   

Figure  A2-7:  Trader  associations’  core  activity  of  the  traders  represented  (Q 
10) 

Q10 Which is the core activity of the traders you represent (N 
= 28)

Selling goods (25)

Selling services (19)

Providing digital content both paid and free…

Providing free on-line services (8)

8

25

19

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

More  than  half  of  the  trade  associations  responding  represented  the  interest  of  traders 
selling  mostly  in  domestic  markets.    23%  of  the  trade  associations  represent  both 
traders selling domestically and cross-border.  

246 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Figure  A2-8:  Do  the  traders  you  represent  sell  domestically  and/or  in  more 
than one country? (Q11) 

Q11 Do the traders you represent sell domestically and/or in more 
than one country? (N = 26)

The majority sell only domestically (in home EU
country)

58%

The majority sell cross-border

8%

Domestically and cross-border in similar numbers

23%

Don’t know

8%

Prefer not to answer

4%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

247 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Annex 3: National legal cases 

DLA Piper – update to European Consumer Compendium.  

82  cases  identified  using  a  search  facility  on  database  relating  to  the  Consumer  Rights 
Directive. In some cases, the CRD is the main piece of legislation referred to whereas in 
other  legal  cases,  the  cases  refer  to  other  Directives,  and  the  CRD  is  also  cited,  for 
instance as a general reference relating to pre-information requirements.  In addition, in 
Section  3.6.4  (analysis  of  CRD  legal  cases),  there  are  a  number  of  further  legal  cases 
especially  for  Germany  and  the  Netherlands,  identified  by  members  of  our  research 
team.  

Austria - 14 July 2015 

2 R 195/15i, 14 July 2015, Regional Court Feldkirch 

After taking into account the objectives of the Consumer Rights Directive, the exclusion 
of  the  withdrawal  rights  in  respect  of  customized  goods  (§  18  Sec  1  Cif  3  FAGG, 
implementation  of  Article  16)  has  to  be  reduced  to  permitting  a  withdrawal,  if,  at  the 
time of declaring withdrawal, the entrepreneur has not yet begun to produce the goods 
and therefore will not suffer any economic disadvantage, which could justify an exclusion 
of the consumers withdrawal rights. 

Austria - 09 October 2014 

G 164/2014, 09 October 2014, Constitutional Tribunal 

A direct action requesting the abrogation of provisions concerning the withdrawal rights 
of  consumers  by  the  plaintiff  was  rejected  from  the  Constitutional  Court,  because  the 
scope of the appeal was not wide enough. 

Belgium - 29 January 2015 

29 January 2015, Canton court of Bruges 

(1)  The  burden  of  proof  regarding  an  infringement  of  article  5  Directive  2011/83 
(implemented into Belgian law by article VI.2 of the Code of Economic Law) is incumbent 
on the plaintiff. Conversely, the burden of proof for the damages suffered as a result of 
the infringement against the rules on information requirements for contracts other than 
distance  or  off-premises  contracts  lies  on  the  defendant.  (2)  The  lack  of  information 
provided by a trader regarding the price for ancillary costs constitutes a breach of article 
5  Directive  2011/83  (implemented  into  Belgian  law  by  article  VI.2  of  the  Code  of 
Economic law). 

Bulgaria - Bulsatcom EAD v. Bulgarian Consumer Protection Commission 

Penal administrative case No 194/2016, 10 October 2016, Gabrovo Administrative Court 

(i)  The  provision  of  information  regarding  the  specific  prices  of  certain  services  only  in 
the section ‘FAQ’ on the website of the trader is not sufficient to support the conclusion 
that the trader has provided this information in a clear and comprehensive manner. (ii) 
The fact that the violation found by the inspectors was not related to a specific contract 
does  not  exclude  the  liability  of  the  trader  for  non-providing  to  consumers  the 
information required by the law. 

248 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Bulgaria  -  Bulgarian  Telecommunication  Company  AD  v.  Bulgarian  Consumer 
Protection Commission 

адм.д. 10521/2015, 22 June 2016, Supreme Administrative Court 

A  commercial  practice  is  considered  unfair  if  it  is  established  that  the  overall 
presentation of information in a commercial guarantee statement misleads or is likely to 
deceive the average consumer. It is sufficient the manner of its presentation to be able 
to mislead the average consumer on making a commercial decision to use the service. 

Bulgaria  -  Bulgarian  Telecommunication  Company  AD  v.  Bulgarian  Consumer 
Protection Commission 

Administrative case 5799/2013, 11 December 2013, Supreme Administrative Court 

The period of fourteen days to withdraw from the conclusion of the distance contract for 
services implies not only a right for the consumer, but also an obligation for the trader. 
In order for the consumer to exercise his right within the statutory deadline, the trader is 
the  one  who  must  deliver  the  terms  of  the  contract  on  paper  or  on  another  durable 
medium in such a period as not to deprive the consumer of his right. No one can derive 
rights from their own misconduct. 

Croatia  -  OT-OPTIMA  TELEKOM  d.d.  v.  Croatian  Regulatory  Authority  for 
Network Industri… 

Usl-5133/13-10, 13 January 2016, Administrative Court in Zagreb 

The contract concluded between a consumer and a trader by using a means of distance 
communication is valid if all legal requirements provided in the Consumer Protection Act 
are  met,  including  the  confirmation  of  the  contract  using  a  means  of  distance 
communication in writing, or in another, durable medium. 

Czech  Republic  -  Contractual  penalty  in  consumer  agreements  entered  into 
after the date of effectiveness of the new Civil Code (I.J., s.r.o. (a legal person, 
a limited liability … v. Mr M.B. (a natural person)) 

19 C 215/2014, 07 October 2014, The District Court in Zlín 

Unlike  the  previous  legislation  (prior  1  January  2014),  the  new  Civil  Code  does  not 
require  a  written  contractual  penalty.  However,  pursuant  to  the  case  of  the 
Constitutional  Court  of  the  Czech  Republic  (see  file  no.  I.  ÚS  3512/11),  in  consumer 
agreements, provisions governing a contractual penalty cannot may not be a part of the 
general  terms  and  conditions.  The  only  way  is  to  have  the  provision  about  the 
contractual  penalty  directly  in  the  agreement  itself  (i.e.  in  the  document  to  which  the 
consumer  attaches  his  /her  signature)  .  Furthermore,  pursuant  to  the  new  legislation, 
where  the  contractual  penalty  in  not  provided  in  the  above-mentioned  manner,  such 
penalty  shall  not  automatically  become  void  (as  it  was  pursuant  to  the  legislation 
effective  prior  1  January  2014),  but  the  court  shall  not  consider  such  a  penalty  to  be 
valid  if  the  consumer  does  not  explicitly  invoke  the  provision.  In  other  words,  such  a 
penalty  shall  be  deemed,  unless  provided  otherwise,  voidable.  Moreover,  where  an 
authorised  electronic  signature  was  not  attached  to  a  data  message,  such  a  document 
(the general terms and conditions) containing a provision about the contractual penalty 
cannot  be  deemed  as  personally  undersigned  by  a  customer.  As  stated  above,  such  a 
provision shall be deemed voidable, unless expressly invoked by the customer. 

Czech  Republic  -  Agreement  on  promotion  of  advertising  space  (assessing  the 
balance of right s and obligations of parties to the consumer agreement) (1) Mr 

249 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Hynek  Pýcha,  2)  Občanského  sdružení  Společná…  v.  1)  District  Court  in 
Rakovník, 2) Regional Court i…) 

II.ÚS 1810/13, 13 May 2014, The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic 

Due  to  the  unwantedly  inconsistent  case  law  of  lower  courts  in  factually  and  legally 
similar  disputes  as  well  as  with  regards  to  the  obvious  contradiction  between  factual 
findings  and  legal  conclusions,  the  Constitutional  Court  did  not  rejected  the  petition  as 
manifestly ill-founded and as a petty case. Since a party to the agreement on promotion 
of advertising space was a consumer, lower courts should have dealt with his objections 
that  a  company  (being  the  other  party  to  the  agreement)  and  its  business  strategy  is 
based  on  starting  (and  winning)  legal  disputes  with  its  clients  and  repeatedly  filing 
actions against its clients in each of the periods of effectiveness of the agreement which 
had increased the costs of the proceedings and keeping the dispute below the threshold 
for  the  petty  case.  Lower  court  have  to  address  the  customer's  objection  that  the 
agreement  on  promotion  of  advertising  space  contains  provisions  creating  (to  the 
detriment  of  the  consumer)  a  significant  imbalance  in  rights  and  obligations  of  the 
parties.  Should  the  lower  court  fail  to  address  those  objections,  it  will  breach  the 
consumer's  right  to  a  fair  trial,  because  these  objection  (able  to  affect  the  legal 
assessment  of the case by the  court) may prevent an unacceptable imbalance in rights 
and  obligations  of  the  parties  to  a  consumer  agreement,  whether  it  is  a  petty  case  or 
not. 

Czech Republic - 23 April 2014 

Cpjn 203/2013, 23 April 2014, The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic 

A  contractual  provision  about  the  loan  management  fee  in  a  loan  agreement  is  not 
unclear only because it does not contain a clear and full list of activities for which is the 
fee agreed and paid by the customer. The provision about the loan management fee in 
the  loan  agreement  is  not  subject  to  the  prohibition  of  provisions  in  consumer 
agreements  that,  contrary  to  the  requirement  of  good  faith,  constitute  a  significant 
imbalance  in  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties  to  the  consumer  agreement  to  the 
detriment of the consumer. 

Czech Republic - Bank fees (judgment III. ÚS 3725/13) (S.K. (a natural person, 
anonymous) v. the District Court for Prague 4) 

III. ÚS 3725/13, 10 April 2014, The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic 

The  consumer-seller  relationship  is  not  directly  regulated  by  a  specific  part  of 
constitutional  law,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  isolated  from  nor  independent  from  the 
constitutionally  guaranteed  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms.  Therefore,  in  such  a 
legally  regulated  relationship,  to  maintain  and  secure  the  fundamental  rights  and 
freedoms  is  deemed  to  be  a  duty  of  the  state  (see  Article  1  (1)  of  the  Czech 
Constitution),  consisting  of  creating  the  conditions  either  for  concluding  consumer 
contracts  safely  and  for  dealing  with  disputes  arising  therefrom.  However,  unilateral 
protective  measures  and  other  interference  from  the  state  may  not  replace  nor  be 
contrary to the fundamental private law principle of autonomy of will and the principle of 
freedom of establishment. 

Czech  Republic  -  Use  of  the  general  terms  and  conditions  in  consumer 
agreements.  (Mr  Martin  Skopec  (a  natural  person)  v.  District  Court  in  České 
Budějovice) 

I. ÚS 3512/11, 11 November 2013, The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic 

250 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

In consumer agreements, the provision governing a contractual penalty cannot may not 
be a part of the general terms an condition. The only way is to have the provision about 
the contractual penalty directly in the agreement itself (i.e. in the document to which the 
consumer attaches his /her signature). 

Denmark - 14 April 2016 

Case 15/12327, 14 April 2016, The Consumer Ombudsman 

(1)  Companies  that  market  their  products  in  Danish  must  provide  all  information 
required by the law in Danish. However, if the products are marketed entirely in English, 
it is possible to fulfill the duty to inform by providing the required information in English. 

Denmark - 20 March 2015 

Case 14/06430, 20 March 2015, Consumer Ombudsman 

(1) Customised beds  were not  exempt from the  right of withdrawal as long as it would 
not be impossible to sell them to other customers. 

Denmark - 05 September 2014 

Case 14/08509 , 05 September 2014, Consumer Ombudsmand 

(1) A company cannot refuse to receive worthless goods when the consumer has a right 
to  withdrawal.  (2)  The  company  is  under  no  obligation  to  return  the  worthless  good  to 
the consumer. 

Estonia 
Tarbijakaitseamet (Consumer Protection Board of Es… 

-  Eesti  Tarbijateühistute  Keskühistu 

(currently 

"Coo…  v. 

3-15-2296, 27 January 2016, Tallinn Administrative Court 

(1)The first paragraph of Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2011  on  consumer  rights  is  to  be  interpreted  as 
meaning  that,  where  a  trader  offers  a  short  number  for  the  purpose  of  consumers 
contacting  the  trader  by  telephone  in  relation to  contracts  concluded  with  the  trader,  a 
consumer contacting the trader by telephone  must not incur higher  charges than those 
that  the  consumer  would  incur  for  calling  a  standard  (geographic)  fixed  or  mobile 
number.  (2)  The  first  paragraph  of  Article  21  of  Directive  2011/83/EU  precludes  such 
national  legislation  where  the  telecommunications  service  provider  does  not  pass  on  to 
the  trader  a  part  of  the  charges  that  he  receives  from  the  consumer  for  contacting  the 
trader  on  the  short  number  where  those  charges  exceed  those  which  the  consumer 
would  incur  for  calling  a  standard  (geographic)  fixed  or  mobile  number.  (3)  Offering 
consumers  short  numbers  where  charges  for  such  numbers  exceed  those  which  the 
consumer  would  incur  for  calling  a  standard  (geographic)  fixed  or  mobile  number  is 
prohibited  even  if  alternative  numbers  have  been  offered  where  the  charges  for  the 
alternative  numbers  do  not  exceed  those  which  the  consumer  would  incur  for  calling  a 
standard (geographic) fixed or mobile number. 

Estonia - T K v. R P 

2-10-27805, 16 March 2012, Tallinn Circuit Court 

(1)  Posting  several  separate  advertisements  for  the  sale  of  goods  on  a  website  by  a 
natural  person  can  be  considered  as  activities  related  to  trade,  business  or  profession. 
Hence,  a  sale  contract  concluded  as  a  result  should  be  regarded  a  consumer  contract. 

251 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

(2)  Ancillary  sale  activities  can  also  constitute  activities  related  to  trade,  business  or 
profession. 

Estonia - Janek Kaupmees, Reiven Roos v. OSAÜHING CAPITAL KINNISVARA 

3-2-1-156-11, 08 February 2012, The Supreme Court of Estonia 

(1) The law does dot stipulate that the price needs to be reduced within a specific period 
of  time,  i.e  a  term  for  price  reduction  does  not  follow  from  the  law.  The  reduction  of 
price  can,  however,  be  impermissible  due  to  non-compliance  with  the  principle  of  good 
faith. That can be the case when the seller has a justified expectation that the price will 
not be reduced, because such a right has not been used for a long time by the buyer. (2) 
The  law  does  not  stipulate  that  before  reducing  the  price  the  seller  has  to  be  given  an 
additional  term  for  performing  the  obligation.  Such  an  obligation  might,  however,  arise 
from  the  principle  of  good  faith,  especially if  the  contrary  would  cause  disproportionate 
costs  to  the  seller.  (3)  The  reduction  of  price  can  be  void  if  the  period  of  limitation  for 
the  claim  of  performance  (above  all  the  claim  for  a  removal  of  defect)  on  which  the 
reduction of price is based has passed. 

Finland - Kuluttajariitalautakunnan ratkaisu (PH v. M Oy (Ltd)) 

4865/36/2014, 20 October 2016, The Consumer Disputes Board 

The consumer had the right to return goods purchased through distance sales when the 
product packaging had been opened but the goods had not been taken into use. 

Finland - Kuluttajariitalautakunnan ratkaisu (B v. P Oy (Ltd)) 

1102/33/2015, 16 November 2015, The Consumer Disputes Board 

A  consumer  is  not  required  to  pay  damages  when  withdrawing  from  a  distance  sales 
contract.  The  exception  provided  for  auctions  only  applies  to  distance  sales  which  can 
also be attended in person but does not cover sales which can only be attended online. 

Finland - MAO:605/14 (Consumer Ombudsman v. DNA Oy (Ltd)) 

2013/455, 29 August 2014, Market Court 

The marketing of consumer goods must provide the consumer with essential information 
about  the  terms  of  contract  so  that  the  consumer  can  reach  a  reasoned  decision 
concerning the purchase of goods. Marketing must not be misleading. More specifically, 
if the duration of the consumer contract is more than one month, the total price of the 
whole contract as well as its duration must be provided to the  consumer in a clear and 
understandable way. Providing only a monthly price is insufficient. 

Greece - 06 October 2016 

no of protocol 30412, 06 October 2016, Ombudsman of the Consumer 

In case a consumer exercises his right of withdrawal from a distance sales contract, the 
supplier is not allowed to issue a coupon with the value of the returned goods instead of 
refunding  the  full  amount  that  the  consumer  has  paid  to  purchase  the  goods.  The 
issuance  of  such  a  coupon  (instead  of  refunding  the  payment)  is  contrary  to  the 
obligations  of  the  supplier  further  to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  withdrawal  by  the 
consumer. 

Greece - 04 October 2016 

252 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

no of protocol 29962, 04 October 2016, Ombudsman of the Consumer 

The consumer should in principle be able to open the packaging in order to examine the 
goods, in the event similar goods usually appear without packaging at the stores. 

Italy  -  Norwegian  Air  Shuttle  -  Commissioni  su  carta  di  credito  (Autorità 
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (… v. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA) 

PS9235 - Decision No. 26183, 28 September 2016, Italian Competition Authority 

The  misleading  representation  of  the  real  cost  at  the  beginning  of  the  online  booking 
procedure  by  means  of  the  derecognition  of  unpredictable  extra  costs,  subsequently 
automatically  charged,  constitutes  an  unfair  commercial  practice  since  it  is  an 
infringement of Article 19 of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. 

Italy  -  Vodafone  -  Servizio  Exclusive  (ADUC  -  Associazione  per  i  Diritti  degli 
Utenti v. Vodafone Italia S.p.A.) 

PS10186 - Decision No. 25904, 09 March 2016, Italian Competition Authority 

The  automatic  activation  of  an  additional  service  without  customers'  explicit  opt-in 
consent  and  the  related  automatic  charge  of  the  cost  and  the  refusal  to  reimburse 
customers constitute an unfair  commercial practice since it is an infringement of Article 
22 of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. 

Italy  -  Amazon  -  Market  place  -  Garanzia  legale  (Autorità  Garante  della 
Concorrenza e del Mercato (… v. Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, 
Amazo…) 

PS9353 - Decision No. 25911, 09 March 2016, Italian Competition Authority 

Providing poor and imprecise information and/or in a way for what such information are 
difficult  to  be  found  and  understood  by  consumers  constitutes  an  unfair  commercial 
practice  since  it  is  an  infringement  of  Articles  6  and  8,  Paragraph  2  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU on consumer rights. 

Italy  -  H3G  -  Sweep  garanzia  legale  /  commerciale  (Autorità  Garante  della 
Concorrenza e del Mercato (… v. H3G S.p.A. and TMM S.r.l.) 

PS10042 - Decision No. 25759, 02 December 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

In  the  context  of  distance  contracts,  the  lack  of  clear  mandatory  pre-contractual 
information as well as of a complete memo on the scope and types of the exercise of the 
legal guarantee of conformity for goods constitutes an unfair commercial practice since it 
is an infringement of Articles 6 and 8, Paragraph 1 of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer 
rights. 

Italy  -  GDF  Suez  -  Attivazioni  non  richieste  (Centro  di  Ricerca  e  Tutela  dei 
Consumatori e degli… v. GDF Suez Energie S.p.A.) 

Case PS9578 - Decision No. 25707, 11 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  conclusion  of  supply  contracts  without  the  explicit  consumer's  consent,  the 
automatic  activation  of  non-requested  supplies  and  the  related  unjustified  request  for 
payment for the provision of  such unsolicited supplies, the lack  of information provided 
in offering and concluding such contractual offer, as well as the opposition of obstacles to 
the  exercise  of  the  withdrawal  right  constitute  an  aggressive  and  unfair  commercial 

253 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

practice  since  it  is  an  infringement  of  Articles  8,  Paragraphs  6-7  and  9  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  as  well  as  of  the  provisions  which  set  out  the 
prohibition  to  carry  out  unfair  commercial  practices  since  such  conduct  had  to  be 
considered  as  deceptive,  aggressive  and  characterized  by  misleading  omissions  and 
undue influence put in place by the defendant. 

Italy - Green Network - Attivazioni non richieste (Centro di Ricerca e Tutela dei 
Consumatori e degli… v. Green Network Luce & Gas S.r.l) 

Case PS9834 - Decision No. 25708, 11 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  conclusion  of  supply  contracts  without  the  explicit  consumer's  consent,  the 
automatic  activation  of  non-requested  supplies  and  the  related  unjustified  request  for 
payment for the provision of  such unsolicited supplies, the lack  of information provided 
in offering and concluding such contractual offer, as well as the opposition of obstacles to 
the  exercise  of  the  withdrawal  right  constitute  an  aggressive  and  unfair  commercial 
practice since it is an infringement of Articles 6, Paragraph 1, lit. h); 8, Paragraph 6; 9, 
Paragraph 2 of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. 

Italy  -  Bee  Twin  -  Attivazioni  non  richieste  (FederConsumatori  Nazionali, 
FederConsumatori Arezz… v. Bee Twin S.p.A.) 

Case PS9406 - Decision No. 25696, 04 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  conclusion  of  supply  contracts  without  the  explicit  consumer's  consent,  the 
automatic  activation  of  non-requested  supplies  and  the  related  unjustified  request  for 
payment for the provision of  such unsolicited supplies, the lack  of information provided 
in offering and concluding such contractual offer, as well as the opposition of obstacles to 
the  exercise  of  the  withdrawal  right  constitute  an  aggressive  and  unfair  commercial 
practice since it is an infringement of Articles 8, Paragraph 6; 9 of Directive 2011/83/EU 
on consumer rights, as well as of the provisions which set out the prohibition to carry out 
unfair  commercial  practices  since  such  conduct  had  to  be  considered  as  deceptive, 
aggressive and characterized by misleading omissions and undue influence put in place 
by the defendant. 

Italy - PC ITALIA - Sweep garanzia legale/commerciale (Autorità Garante della 
Concorrenza e del Mercato (… v. Punto Informatica S.r.l. and Punto Informatica 
S.a…) 

PS10035 - Decision No. 25702, 04 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

In the  context  of distance contracts, the lack of terms concerning the  withdrawal right, 
the  legal  guarantee  as  well  as  the  prevision  of  a  clear  procedure  for  the  sending  of 
potential complaints constitutes an infringement of Articles 6, Paragraph 1, lit. g), h), l); 
9, Paragraph 1 and 11, Paragraph 1 of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. 

Italy  -  Enel  Energia  -  Attivazioni  non  richieste  (Federconsumatori,  Codacons, 
Tutela Noi Consumatori… v. Enel Energia S.p.A.) 

Case PS9769 - Decision No. 25697, 04 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  conclusion  of  supply  contracts  without  the  explicit  consumer's  consent,  the 
automatic  activation  of  non-requested  supplies  and  the  related  unjustified  request  for 
payment for the provision of  such unsolicited supplies, the lack  of information provided 
in offering and concluding such contractual offer, as well as the opposition of obstacles to 
the  exercise  of  the  right  to  reconsider  the  offer  and  the  non-proper  evaluation  of  the 
consumers' complaints constitute an aggressive and unfair commercial practice since it is 

254 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

an  infringement  of  Articles  6,  Paragraph  1,  letter  h)  and  8,  Paragraph  6  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  as  well  as  of  the  provisions  which  set  out  the 
prohibition  to  carry  out  unfair  commercial  practices  since  such  conduct  had  to  be 
considered  as  deceptive,  aggressive  and  characterized  by  misleading  omissions  and 
undue influence put in place by the defendant. 

Italy  -  Acea  Energia  -  Attivazioni  non  richieste  (Adiconsum  Toscana  v.  Acea 
Energia S.p.A.) 

Case PS9815 - Decision No. 25698, 04 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  automatic  activation  of  an  additional  service  without  customers'  explicit  opt-in 
consent  and  the  related  automatic  charge  of  the  cost  and  the  refusal  to  reimburse 
customers  constitutes  an  aggressive  and  unfair  commercial  practice  since  it  is  an 
infringement  of  Articles  6,  Paragraph  1,  lit  h);  8,  Paragraphs  6-7  and  9  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  as  well  as  of  the  provisions  which  set  out  the 
prohibition  to  carry  out  unfair  commercial  practices  since  such  conduct  had  to  be 
considered  as  deceptive,  aggressive  and  characterized  by  misleading  omissions  and 
undue influence put in place by the defendant. 

Italy - Eni- Attivazione non richiesta (Adiconsum sede di Trapani, Codacons sedi 
di Croton… v. Eni S.p.A.) 

Case PS10000 - Decision No. 25701, 04 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  conclusion  of  supply  contracts  without  the  explicit  consumer's  consent,  the 
automatic  activation  of  non-requested  supplies,  the  lack  of  information  provided  in 
offering and concluding such  contractual offer, as  well as the  opposition of  obstacles to 
the  exercise  of  the  withdrawal  right  constitute  an  aggressive  and  unfair  commercial 
practice  since  it  is  an  infringement  of  Articles  8,  Paragraphs  6-7  and  9  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  as  well  as  of  the  provisions  which  set  out  the 
prohibition  to  carry  out  unfair  commercial  practices  since  such  conduct  had  to  be 
considered  as  deceptive,  aggressive  and  characterized  by  misleading  omissions  and 
undue influence put in place by the defendant. 

Italy  -  Hera  -  Attivazioni  non  richieste  (Federconsumatori  Toscana, 
Federconsumatori sede di… v. Hera Comm S.r.l.) 

Case PS9999 - Decision No. 25700, 04 November 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  conclusion  of  supply  contracts  without  the  explicit  consumer's  consent,  the 
automatic  activation  of  non-requested  supplies,  the  lack  of  information  provided  in 
offering and concluding such  contractual offer, as  well as the  opposition of  obstacles to 
the  exercise  of  the  withdrawal  right  constitute  an  aggressive  and  unfair  commercial 
practice  since  it  is  an  infringement  of  Articles  8,  Paragraphs  6-7  and  9  of  Directive 
2011/83/EU  on  consumer  rights,  as  well  as  of  the  provisions  which  set  out  the 
prohibition  to  carry  out  unfair  commercial  practices  since  such  conduct  had  to  be 
considered  as  deceptive,  aggressive  and  characterized  by  misleading  omissions  and 
undue influence put in place by the defendant. 

Italy - Sky - Procedure di teleselling (Centro di ricerca e tutela dei consumatori 
e degli… v. Sky Italia S.r.l.) 

PS9981 - Decision No. 25634, 30 September 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

In  the  context  of  distance  contracts,  anticipated  by  a  telephone  conversation,  the 
automatic  conclusion  of  the  agreement  without  the  confirmation  of  such  offer  by  the 

255 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

trader and without the signing or explicit consent by the consumer (where agreed, even 
embedded in a durable medium) constitutes an unfair commercial practice since it is an 
infringement of Article 8, Paragraphs 6-7 of Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. 

Italy - Wind - Distribuzione con addebito automatico elenchi telefonici (Autorità 
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (… v. Wind Telecomunicazioni S.p.A.) 

PS9579 - Decision No. 25331, 03 March 2015, Italian Competition Authority 

The  automatic  activation  of  an  additional  service  without  customers'  explicit  prior 
consent  and  the  related  automatic  charge  of  the  cost  constitutes  an  unfair  commercial 
practice  since  it  is  an  infringement  of  Article  22  of  Directive  2011/83/EU  on  consumer 
rights. 

Latvia - 02 May 2016 

Case No.13-pk, 02 May 2016, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

(1)  The  place  of  trade  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  business  premises  of  the  trader,  if  it 
cannot be identified as a regular trading place and if the goods are not available to any 
consumer  but  only  to  specific  persons.  (2)  Off-premises  contracts  oblige  the  trader  to 
inform the consumers on the right of withdrawal by providing a withdrawal form. (3) The 
failure  to  inform  on  the  right  of  withdrawal  violates  consumer  rights  and  subjects  the 
trader  to  liability.  (4)  The  right  of  withdrawal  must  not  be  restricted  by  imposing  the 
duty upon the consumer to personally return the purchased goods. 

Latvia - 21 January 2016 

Case No.2-pk, 21 January 2016, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

(1)  Information  on  the  characteristics  of  goods  traded  by  distance  contract  is  not 
sufficient  if  it  does  not  include  all  the  relevant  details  on  the  respective  goods,  even  if 
the  trader  uses  a  disclaimer  that  information  is  available  on  the  website  of  the 
manufacturer.  (2)  The  exercise  of  the  right  of  withdrawal  may  not  be  made  subject  to 
the  condition  that  the  goods  have  not  lost  their  quality  upon  return.  (3)  A  general 
statement  that  the  goods  are  subject  to  guarantees  is  not  sufficient  reminder  of 
guarantee, but instead the specific goods must be accompanied by specific conditions of 
the  guarantee.  (4)  A  durable  medium  containing  information  on  distance  agreement  is 
either print, data storage, file sent to e-mail (that cannot be modified), but not a website 
containing such information, if the information cannot be saved. 

Latvia - 02 December 2015 

Case No.3-pk, 02 December 2015, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

(1) Distance contracts  require providing sufficient characteristics of the goods traded in 
the official language of the state. (2) Requirement to provide conditions of the contract 
includes  the  duty  to  provide  the  terms  of  payment  and  delivery.  (3)  The  reminder  of 
guarantee  of  the  goods  is  an  indispensable  aspect  of  distance  contract.  (4)  The 
withdrawal  form  is  illegitimate,  if  it  contains  restrictions  exceeding  those  permitted  by 
law, such as the requirement to return the goods within shorter period than laid down by 
the law, the requirement to return the goods in full packaging, and the exemption of the 
right to return goods if they are intended for current consumption. (5) Not ensuring the 
possibility  of  saving  the  distance  contract  rules  available  on  the  trader’s  website  via 
durable medium violates consumer rights associated with distance contracts. 

256 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Latvia - 09 October 2014 

Case No. E03-PTU-K142-31, 09 October 2014, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

(1)  Contract  concluded  via  phone  constitutes  distance  contract.  (2)  Distance  contracts 
entail  the  right  of  withdrawal,  which  includes  default  termination  of  the  ancillary 
contracts.  (3)  Requiring  the  conclusion  of  ancillary  contract  which  imposes  costs  upon 
the consumer after promising costs-free distance contract is prohibited. (4) The right of 
withdrawal  has  not  been  ensured  if  the  withdrawal  form  is  not  provided  and  if  the 
withdrawal  is  made  conditional  upon  the  moment  when  the  trader  retrieves  the  goods 
from the consumers, and if contacting the trader is impossible. 

Latvia - 16 May 2014 

Case No. 8-pk, 16 May 2014, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

(1) A disclaimer, which provides that the trader bears no liability for incorrect description 
of the goods,  constitutes unfair and  invalid condition of distance contract. (2) Trader is 
liable  if  the  information  on  the  goods  traded  by  means  of  distance  contracts  is 
inaccurate, and cannot relieve itself from this liability by a disclaimer. 

Latvia - 20 March 2014 

Case No. E03-PTU-K223-11, 20 March 2014, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

(1) The information on the trader and on the right of withdrawal is indispensable in case 
of distance contracts since it affects the consumer’s decision to purchase the goods. (2) 
The main characteristics of the goods must be provided in a way to allow the consumer 
to identify and compare the goods pursuant to facts, instead of value-descriptions, which 
may mislead the consumer. 

Latvia - 07 March 2014 

Case No. 3-pk, 07 March 2014, Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

Restricting the right of withdrawal from off-premises contracts by allowing the trader to 
dismiss a request of withdrawal if the returned goods are damaged or to impose costs of 
repairing the goods upon the consumer is prohibited. 

Latvia - SIA "Pigu Latvia" (220.lv) v. Consumer Rights Protection Centre 

Case No A 420647510, 02 October 2012, Regional Court of Administrative Cases 

(1)  The  nature  of  distance  agreement  is  determined  by  the  means  of  concluding  the 
contract, and is not affected by the place of receiving the goods or by the possibility of 
inspecting  the  goods  in  presence.  (2)  The  possibility  to  withdraw  from  the  distance 
agreement after the inspection of the goods is not an effective protection otf the right of 
withdrawal.  (3)  The  rules  aimed  at  circumventing  the  consumers’  rights  to  withdrawal 
are invalid. 

Lithuania - M.B. and T.B. v. UAB “Baltic Clipper” 

3K-3-358-248/2016, 07 July 2016, Supreme Court of Lithuania 

257 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

(1) The agreement concluded between the trader and the consumer for sale-purchase of 
flight  tickets  shall  be  considered  as  a  consumer  agreement.  (2)  The  trader  of  flight 
tickets  has  a  duty  not  only  to  inform  consumers  about  visas  which  are  needed  to  be 
obtained  before  travelling,  but  also  to  provide  this  information  adequately  and 
sufficiently. 

Lithuania - V.N. v. UAB “LoMinda” 

e3K-3-332-687/2016, 27 June 2016, Supreme Court of Lithuania 

Traders  should  inform  the  consumers  on  associated  risks  of  damage  to  their  items  in 
writing. 

Lithuania - UAB “Torpol Baltija” v. Z.P. 

3K-3-698-686/2015, 28 December 2015, Supreme Court of Lithuania 

(1)  The  consumer  can  legally  withdraw  from  the  consumer  sales  agreement  within  11 
days  from  the  conclusion  of  such  an  agreement,  despite  the  fact  that  national  law 
establishes  7  days  term.  (2)  Provisions  of  Directive  2011/83  are  applied  in  the  event 
when  the  sales  agreement  between  the  trader  and  the  consumer  was  concluded  at  the 
time when Directive 2011/83 was adopted, but not yet implemented in the national law. 

Lithuania - L.S. v. AB DnB bankas 

3K-7-168-687/2015, 15 May 2015, Supreme Court of Lithuania 

The  regulations  of  Directive  2011/83/EU  and  provisions  of  the  Civil  Code  of  Lithuania 
implementing those regulations do not apply to the relationship between the bank and a 
non-professional investor arising from investment agreements. 

Malta - Mercieca noe vs Camilleri noe (Manuel Mercieca noe v. Piu Camileri noe) 

12/2014, 29 July 2015, Court of Appeal (Civil, inferior) 

(1) Consumer legislation applies when one party is a consumer and the other a trader; 
the  Consumer  Rights  Regulations  expressly  exclude  contracts  of  sale  of  property  from 
the remit of the law. 

Poland - (...) Bank (...) S.A. with registered office in G. v. K. R. i S. R. 

I C 662/14, 02 March 2016, District Court Warsaw-Praga in Warsaw 

Granting  of  a  special  protection  to  consumers  in  respect  of  contracts  concluded  with 
banks,  is  justified  by  the  requirement  to  protect  the  consumer's  interest.  Unfair 
conditions in the agreement are not binding on consumer. However, the remaining part 
of  the  agreement  continues  to  be  in  in  force,  if it  is lawful  after  the  exclusion  of  unfair 
provisions. This thesis is justified on the basis of EU directives i.e.: Directive 2011/83/EU 
of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights. 

Poland - U. Towarzystwa Ubezpieczeń v. President of the Office of Competition 
and Consume… 

III SZP 2/15, 09 September 2015, Supreme Court 

258 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

(1) The injured party, a natural person who does not conduct any business activity and 
who  is  claiming  under  the  insurer's  strict  liability  resulting  from  the  compulsory 
insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners, is not a consumer in the meaning of Article 
24 in conjunction with. 4(12) of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection of 16 
February 2007 in conjunction with Article 22/1 of the Civil Code. 

Poland - K. G. v. Towarzystwu Ubezpieczeń S.A. 

I CSK 216/14, 07 April 2015, Supreme Court 

(1) The individual content and conclusion of agreements with consumers is a principle of 
consumer protection. Nevertheless, this does not mean that a consumer has a privileged 
position and is exempt from the obligation of due diligence in assessing the content of an 
agreement that he/she intends to conclude. 

Portugal - A. v. O, LDA. 

9807-12.5TBOER.L1-8, 04 June 2015, Lisbon Court of Appeal 

Contracts  shall  be  null  and  void  if  they  do  not  include  clear  and  comprehensive  pre-
contractual information. 

Portugal - A v. B, Lda. 

14/2014-JPSXL, 10 June 2014, Justice of Peace 

Off-premises contracts are governed by Directive 2011/83/EU, of 25 October. 

Portugal - CC v. AA 

1092/10.0TBLSD-G.P1.S1, 29 May 2014, Supreme Court of Justice 

A person that concludes a promissory contract for the sale of a good shall be deemed as 
a  ‘consumer’,  in  accordance  with  Article  2  of  Directive  2011/83/EU,  of  25  October, 
should the good be intended for his own personal use. 

Romania - 27 June 2016 

Decision no. 2373/A/2016, 27 June 2016, Bucharest Tribunal 

(1)  The  court  found  that  the  commission  which  drafted  the  minutes  ascertaining  the 
damage of the goods was not properly constituted, due to the fact that the plaintiff was 
not  included.  (2)  The  minutes  does  not  mention  the  date  when  it  was  drafted  and, 
therefore, it cannot be established if it refers to the goods returned to the consumer. 

Romania - 26 May 2016 

Decision no. 236/2016, 26 May 2016, Galați Tribunal 

The goods were taken under signature by a representative of the defendant, and that, at 
that time, no  objections were made regarding their condition. Therefore, the defendant 
is  responsible  for  receiving  the  goods  without  performing  an  immediate  verification  of 
their integrity. 

259 

 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Romania - 17 May 2016 

Decision no. 534/2016, 17 May 2016, Timis Tribunal 

The  consumer  has  to  prove  that  a  contract  is  concluded  off-premises,  being  irrelevant 
the wording of the agreement. 

Romania - 13 April 2016 

Decision no. 375/2016, 13 April 2016, Sibiu Tribunal 

The  seller  has  to  bear  the  delivery  costs  and  to  pay  legal  interest  to  the  principal 
amount, calculated from the date of receipt of the returned product until the date of the 
refund. 

Slovakia  -  The  Inspectorate  of  the  Slovak  Trade  Inspection  in…  v.  POOLMAN 
s.r.o. 

SK/0163/99/2016,  06  September  2016,  Central  Inspectorate  of  the  Slovak  Trade 
Inspection in Bratislava 

(1) The condition of the e-shop stating that when there is a consumer claim with respect 
to  the  purchased  goods,  the  consumer  is  obliged  to  deliver  such  goods  in  the  original 
packaging,  does  impose  an  obligation  on  a  consumer  without  a  legal  reason.  (2)  The 
condition  of  the  e-shop  stating  that  the  delivery  periods  vary  depending  on  the  type  of 
the goods is contrary to the provisions of consumer law as the seller, when concluding a 
distance  contract,  is  obliged  to  clearly  and  comprehensively  announce  the  delivery 
conditions  and  the  period  in  which  the  seller  is  obliged  to  deliver  the  goods  to  the 
consumer. (3) The condition of the e-shop stating that the prices stated on the website 
of the defendant may be changed without a prior notice and the applicable  price will be 
announced  in  the  stage  of  verifying  the  order  is  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  Civil 
Code as the condition gives right to the seller to increase the price of the goods without 
giving a right to the consumer to withdraw from the contract, if the price is substantially 
increased  in  comparison  with  the  price  agreed  at  the  time  of  conludign  the  contract. 
Further,  such  condition  is  also  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  consumer  law  as  the  seller 
before  concluding  a  distance  contract  and  before  the  consumer  sends  the  order  is 
obliged  to  clearly  and  comprehensively  announce  the  price  of  goods  together  with  all 
applicable  taxes  to  the  consumer.  (4)  The  conditions  of  the  e-shop  stating  that  the 
amount of expenses for delivery will be announced in the stage of verifying the order is 
contrary  to  the  provisions  of  consumer  law  as  the  seller,  when  concluding  a  distance 
contract, is obliged to clearly and comprehensively announce the amount of expenses for 
the delivery, postage charges and other applicable expenses and fees. (5) The conditions 
of  the  e-shop  which  states  that  the  consumer  is  entitled  to  withdraw  from  the  contract 
without stating a reason in the period of 7 working days from the day the consumer took 
over the goods is contrary to the provisions of consumer law as the consumer has a right 
to withdraw from the distance contract without stating a reason in the period of 14 days 
from the day of taking over the goods. (6) The condition of the e-shop stating that the 
consumer  (buyer)  announces,  before  filling  in  or  notifying  the  order,  that  he/she  has 
been  made  aware  of  these  terms  and  conditions  as  well  as  the  claim  procedure  and  is 
agreeing  to  such  terms  and  conditions  and  the  claim  procedure  is  not  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Act  on  Consumer  Protection  as  it  does  not  affect  any  of  the  stated 
consumer rights but merely amend the way of approval of the consumer with the terms 
and conditions without constraining or limiting the extent and quality of consumer rights. 

Slovakia - ZEPTER SLOVAKIA, spol s.r.o. v. A.R. 

16Co/314/2015, 12 May 2016, Regional Court Banská Bystrica 

260 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

(1)  The  condition  in  the  off-premises  contract  for  sale  which  states  that  the  consumer 
has a right to withdraw from the contract in the period of 7 working days from the day of 
taking  over  the  object  of  the  contract  of  sale  is  not  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the 
consumer  law  as  the  subject  of  the  contract  for  sale  was  never  handed  over  and 
therefore  the  right  of  the  consumer  to  withdraw  from  the  contract  never  arose.  This  is 
also in line with the Directive 2011/83/EU which states that the right of the consumer to 
withdraw from the off-premises contract arises by the moment of delivery of the goods 
to  the  buyer  (consumer).  (2)  The  provision  in  the  off-premises  contract  for  sale  which 
states  that  the  goods  shall  be  delivered  within  28  days  as  of  the  last  paid  instalment 
constitutes  an  unfair  contractual  condition  as  §  588  of  the  Civil  Code  states  that  the 
seller is obliged to hand over the subject of the sales contract and the buyer is obliged to 
take over the subject and pay the agreed price. Thus, there is firstly the obligation of the 
seller  to  hand  over  the  goods  and  only  after  such  performance  the  obligation  of  the 
buyer to pay the price arises. (3) The sales contract is invalid if it does not contain the 
method of payment of the purchase price. 

Slovakia  -  The  Inspectorate  of  the  Slovak  Trade  Inspection  in…  v.  Mgr.  Jozef 
Mindala -FitForm.sk 

SK/0747/99/2015, 10 March 2016,  Central Inspectorate  of the Slovak Trade Inspection 
in Bratislava 

(1)  Such  obligation  represents  an  obligation  imposed  on  the  consumer  without  legal 
basis.  Act  No.  102/2014  Coll.  stipulates  that  the  consumer  is  obliged  to  send  the 
purchased goods back to the seller or hand the purchased goods back to the seller or to 
the  person  authorised  by  the  seller,  within  the  period  of  14  days  from  the  day  of 
withdrawal from the contract. Furthermore, the 14 days period is deemed to be satisfied 
if the consumer hands over the purchased goods for transportation on the last day of the 
period.  The  consumer  is  not  obliged  to  deliver  the  goods  together  with  the  withdrawal 
from the distance contract. (2) Such  condition represents an  obligation imposed  on  the 
consumer without legal basis. The consumer is entitled to try out the goods in order to 
assess  them.  The  consumer  is  also  not  obliged  to  keep  the  original  packaging  of  the 
product.    (3)  The  seller  is  obliged  to  return  back  all  payments  received  from  the 
consumer in the period of 14 days from the delivery of the notice of withdrawal from the 
contract. 

Slovakia  -  The  Inspectorate  of  the  Slovak  Trade  Inspection  in…  v.  Euro  W-
Trading s.r.o. 

SK/0037/99/2016,  03  February  2016,  Central  Inspectorate  of  the  Slovak  Trade 
Inspection in Bratislava 

(1)  The  provision  of  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  seller  stating  that  "the  purchaser 
confirms  by  sending  the  order  to  the  seller  that  the  seller  has  complied  with  the 
information  obligation  pursuant  to  §  3  (1)  of  the  Act  No.  102/2014  Coll.  on  the 
protection  of  consumers  in  sale  of  goods  or  provision  of  services  under  distance 
contracts  or  contracts  executed  outside  the  business  premises  of  the  seller,  as 
amended",  is  not  in  compliance  with  §  3  (1)  of  the  Act  No.  102/2014  Coll.  on  the 
protection  of  consumers  in  sale  of  goods  or  provision  of  services  under  distance 
contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended, 
as such  clause transfers the burden  of proof  with respect to the  obligation of informing 
the consumer on the consumer instead of the seller. 

Slovakia  -  The  Inspectorate  of  the  Slovak  Trade  Inspection  in…  v.  Ing.  Ján 
Opavský - ODORA 

261 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

SK/0509/99/2015, 25 January 2016, Central Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection 
in Bratislava 

(1)  The  clause  in  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  e-shop  stating  that  "in  case  the 
customer cancels the order after the payment of the price but before the delivery of the 
service  and  if  the  period  for  delivery  did  not  lapse  the  seller  shall  have  the  right  to 
calculate the expenses connected with the order" is in contrary to Act No. 102/2014 Coll. 
on the protection  of  consumers in sale of goods or provision of  services under distance 
contracts or contracts executed outside the business premises of the seller, as amended, 
as the consumer shall have the right to withdraw from the contract within 14 days as of 
the takeover of the goods and also to cancel the order prior to the start of the period for 
withdrawal. 

Slovakia - The Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection in… v. MP BONUSKO 
s.r.o. 

SK/0677/99/2015, 14 January 2016, Central Inspectorate of the Slovak Trade Inspection 
in Bratislava 

(1) The obligation to draw up a protocol on the extent and nature of the damaged goods 
immediately  when  taking  over  the  purchased  goods  shall  represent  an  obligation 
imposed on the consumer without any legal basis. Such condition can only be made in a 
form of recommendation to the consumer as no legal act imposes such obligation on the 
consumer. (2) The consumer is not obliged to state the reason for the withdrawal from 
the  contract.  According  to  the  Act  No.  102/2014  Coll.  the  consumer  has  a  right  to 
withdraw  from  the  contract  without  stating  the  reason  for  such  withdrawal.  (3)  The 
clause  in  the  terms  and  conditions  stating  that  by  sending  the  order  the  buyer 
(consumer) expresses his consent with the terms and conditions of the seller creates an 
unbalance  in  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties  to  the  contract  as  the  consumer 
only  has  an  option  to  become  familiar  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  seller, 
however  the  consumer  has  no  option  to  influence  the  content  of  such  terms  and 
conditions. 

Slovenia - unknown v. The trade inspection of the republic of Slovenia 

, 18 May 2016, Supreme court (Administrative department) 

(1) The consumer has a right to withdraw from a contract already prior to the delivery of 
ordered  goods.  (2)  The  withdrawal  period  expires  14  days  after  consumer  acquired 
physical possession of the goods. 

Slovenia - unknown v. unknown 

, 17 May 2016, Higher court in Ljubljana (Civil department) 

(1)The  service  provider  is  only  entitled  to  increase  the  costs  of  a  contractually  agreed 
price,  if  it  becomes  evident  that  higher  costs  than  considered  in  the  calculation  would 
incur or that it would take a greater amount of work to execute the order, yet only if he 
informs the consumer as soon as he determines that higher costs will arise. (2) For the 
decision on the amount of costs for the repair of the vehicle, which shall be paid by the 
consumer,  it  is important  to  verify  the  scope  of  repair  works  agreed  in  the  “framework 
agreement on the price". (3) The service provider would only be entitled to the payment, 
if he had informed the consumer about the additional work. 

Slovenia - unknown v. Information commissioner 

, 26 March 2014, Administrative court 

262 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

(1)  Processing  personal  data  is  only  permitted,  if  one  of  the  statutory  legal  grounds  is 
given. 

Spain - BBVA, S.A v. LOGIFRUIT S.L. 

TS (Sala de lo Civil, Sección 1ª) Sentencia no. 533/2015 de 3 diciembre, 03 December 
2015, Supreme Court 

The  written  confirmation  of  a  distance  contract  does  not  result  in  the  same  being 
concluded.  It  only  proves  the  existence  of  the  contract  and  the  consent  granted.  A 
distance contract is only deemed to be concluded when both offer and offer’s acceptance 
take place. 

Spain  -  AUSBANC  v.  BANCO  BILBAO  VIZCAYA  ARGENTARIA,  S.A,  CAJA  DE 
AHOR… 

TS (Sala de lo Civil) Sentencia no. 241/2013 de 9 mayo, 09 May 2013, Supreme Court 

Registration  in  the  Registry  of  Associations  does  not  have  constitutive  effects;  the 
association’s legal capacity is brought by the articles of incorporation. This means that it 
is  not  necessary  to  be  registered  at  the  moment  with  this  registry  for  being  entitled  to 
bring legal action in court. 

Spain - Ms Maite v. ASESORIA DE COBRO Y GESTION SL 

AP de Valencia (Sección 7ª) Sentencia no. 444/2012 de 27 julio, 27 July 2012, Provincial 
Court of Valencia 

The lack of compliance with the prior information and provision of a form regarding the 
right of withdrawal entitles the consumer for claiming for the contract to be declared null 
but it does not automatically entail that the contract is null. This means that the contract 
will be deemed to have been terminated when the action succeeds and its effects are not 
deemed to have disappeared (as if it had been null and void ab initio). 

Spain - FINANCIERA EL CORTE INGLÉS EFC S.A v. Mr Francisco 

AP  de  Barcelona  (Sección  17ª)  Sentencia  no.  640/2011  de  21  diciembre,  21  December 
2011, Provincial Court of Barcelona 

Distance  contract,  duty  to  communicate  the  right  of  withdrawal  and  to  deliver  a 
document  of  withdrawal.  In  order  to  comply  with  the  communication  obligation,  it  is 
sufficient to place a clear and comprehensible clause in a catalogue; however, this does 
not suffice to comply with the obligation to deliver the document of withdrawal. A form 
to exercise the already mentioned right must be supplied to the consumer. 

Spain - Mr Baltasar v. Telefónica Móviles España S.A.U. 

AP  de  Murcia  (Sección  5ª)  Sentencia  no.  298/2009  de  15  septiembre,  15  September 
2009, Provincial Court of Murcia 

The law only grants the right of withdrawal in distance, off-premises and travel package 
contracts.  Therefore,  in  contracts  concluded  in  the  seller’s  premises,  if  the  seller 
establishes a shorter term to exercise a contractual right of withdrawal, such term shall 
be the applicable one and not the legal term of 14 calendar days. Furthermore, as long 
as the right of withdrawal is granted by the contract and not by  the law (limited to the 
already mentioned cases), there is no obligation for the seller to inform the consumer of 
the same prior to concluding the contract. 

263 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Sweden - The Consumer Ombudsman (KO) v. Malmö Dansakademi AB 

MD 2016:13, 15 August 2016, The Swedish Market Court 

(1) Dancing courses are not covered by an exception from the right of withdrawal, as a 
service  relating  to  leisure  activities.  (2)  Omission  to  provide  full  information  regarding 
the consumer’s right of withdrawal constitutes misleading omission as it is likely to cause 
the consumer to take a transactional decision he or she would not have taken otherwise. 

Sweden  -  The Consumer  Ombudsman  (KO)  v.  Swedish  Online  Services SOS  AB 
(previously First D… 

MD 2015:2, 09 March 2015, The Swedish Market Court 

(1)  The  invitation  to  purchase  one  week’s  online  dating  for  the  price  of  SEK  1  without 
stating  that  the  agreement  term  is  longer  than  one  week,  and  without  stating  that  the 
invitation to purchase amounts to a higher final price than SEK 1, constitutes misleading 
omission  as  it  is  likely  to  cause  the  consumer  to  take  a  transactional  decision  he/she 
would  not  have  taken  otherwise.  (2)  Omission  to  include  full  information  about  the 
consumer’s  right  of  withdrawal  on  the  trader’s  website  constitutes  misleading  omission 
as it is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision he or she would not 
have taken otherwise. (3) Omission to publish the trader’s correct address, or any email 
address on the trader’s website constitute misleading omission as it is likely to cause the 
consumer to take a transactional decision he or she would not have taken otherwise. 

Sweden - Ekstrand & Son Aktiebolag v. A.S. (private individual) 

NJA 2013 s. 524, 13 June 2013, The Supreme Court 

When a defect could have occurred both before and after the delivery, the seller shall be 
responsible to show the defect did not exist prior to the delivery. 

The Netherlands - Plaintiff v. Defendant 

ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2016:3230, 23 August 2016, District Court Overijssel 

The  unrequested  forwarding  of  goods  to  a  consumer  -  under  the  condition  that  goods 
must be sent back in order to prevent a purchase agreement - does not result in binding 
purchase agreement if and when the consumer does not do so. Consumer does not have 
any obligation to send back and seller is not entitled to any payment. 

The Netherlands - 11 August 2016 

ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:4541 , 11 August 2016, District Court Midden-Nederland 

By clearly stating the termination period during a telephone call and in a letter included 
in a package, defendant cannot state that she was not aware of the termination period. 
She, therefore, entered into a subscription agreement because she did not terminate the 
subscription within the termination period. 

The Netherlands - 13 May 2016 

ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:2425, 13 May 2016, District Court Oost Brabant 

264 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Contracts  of  Essent  entered  into  by  consumers  in  shops  of  MediaMarkt  and  Gamma 
cannot be scaled under distance contracts or contracts entered into the sales area. This 
means  consumers  cannot  terminate  their  contract  on  the  basis  of  a  cooling-off  period. 
The stands used by Essent are a fixed construction and therefore can be seen as a sales 
area. 

The Netherlands - 27 November 2015 

ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:8739 , 27 November 2015, District Court Rotterdam 

By  not  providing  complete  and  correct  information  about  the  termination  period  for  an 
alarm  system  contract,  Verisure  cannot  demand  payment  from  defendant  as  no  legally 
binding contract was created. 

The Netherlands - Plaintiff v. Defendant 

ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2015:2116, 01 April 2015, District Court Midden-Nederland 

A general term or condition in an electronical environment is unreasonably onerous when 
this  particular  condition  obliges  the  consumer  to  pay  the  full  amount  of  the  ordered 
goods upfront. 

MS 

Level of Court 

DE 

DE 

Bundesgerichtshof 
(Federal Supreme 
Court) 

Bundesgerichtshof 
(Federal Supreme 
Court) 

DE 

Amtsgericht 
(District Court) 

DE 

Bundesgerichtshofs 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

(Federal Court) 

Landesgericht 
(regional Court) 

Oberlandesgericht ( 
higher regional 
court) 

Oberlandesgericht ( 
higher regional 
court) 

Oberlandesgericht ( 
higher regional 
court) 

LT 

Administrative 
court 

265 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

MS 

Level of Court 

NL 

NL 

NL 

SE 

Rechtbank 
(tribunal) 

Rechtbank 
(tribunal) 

Rechtbank 
(tribunal) 

Marknadsdomstolen 
(Swedish Patent 
and Market Court) 

266 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Annex 4: Consultation synopsis report (Task 8) 

A4.1 Approach 

Consultation  carried  out  as  part  of  the  study  to  assess  the  relevance,  efficiency, 
effectiveness,  coherence  and  European  added  value  of  the  Consumer  Rights  Directive 
(CRD) consisted of three separate activities: 

•  Online surveys 

• 

Interviews 

•  Open public consultation (OPC). 

Each of these activities enabled different types of data to be collected. Surveys enabled 
the  collection  of  data  from  a  relatively  large  number  of  stakeholders  within  a  relatively 
short  amount  of  time,  although  the  level  of  response  was  not  a  high  as  expected. 
Interviews  enabled  more  in-depth  data  and  clarification  to  be  obtained  in  relation  to 
responses received to the surveys and also with regard to the legal mapping carried out. 
The  OPC  enabled  a  wider  variety  of  opinions  to  be  collected  at  the  broader  level  of  EU 
consumer  and  marketing  law.  Both  the  surveys  and  interviews  were  carried  out  by  the 
consultants, while the OPC was carried out by the European Commission (EC).  

Contact  details  for  national  enforcement  authorities  were  provided  by  the  Commission, 
while  contact  details  for  trade  associations,  consumer  associations  and  ECCs  were 
identified  from  the  consultants’  database  and  online.  In  order  to  reach  as  many 
stakeholders  as  possible,  not  only  were  specific  stakeholders  contacted  directly,  but 
consumer  and  trade  associations  were  asked  to  disseminate  the  survey  to  their 
members, as well as to post links to the survey on their website or on social media sites 
such as Twitter and Facebook, in order to reach individual consumers and traders. Posts 
were  also  displayed  on  the  European  Commission  website,  social  media  sites  such  as 
Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, as well as on online forums.  

National authorities, trade associations, traders, consumer associations, consumers and 
ECCs were all consulted during the aforementioned consultation activities, and numbers 
of responses received from different stakeholders during the three consultation activities 
are summarised in the sections that follow. The aim of this Section is to provide a broad 
overview  of  consultation  activities  carried  out  as  part  of  this  study,  along  with  key 
results,  while  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  results  is  provided  throughout  the  report  and 
structured  in  accordance  with  the  five  evaluation  criteria  (efficiency,  effectiveness, 
coherence, relevance, and EU added value). The number of responses in summarised in 
the next table. 

Online survey 

•  255 complete responses from consumers; Greece, Cyprus 
and  the  UK  where  the  MS  with  the  largest  number  of 
completes; 

•  24 national consumer associations; 

•  157 complete responses were received from traders; 

•  25 complete responses from trade associations; and   

•  24  completed  responses  from  enforcement  authorities 

and 16 from ministries. 

267 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

•  28 ECCs responses 

Interviews 

64 interviews in total in 18 MS: 

•  18 interviews with MS authorities 

•  9 with ECCs 

•  22  with  trade  associations  of  which  14  were  European 

level ones 

•  11 consumer associations 

•  1 individual consumer 

•  3 individual traders 

OPC 

In  addition  to  the  436  survey  responses  to  the  OPC,  56 
position  papers  were  provided  to  the  study  team  and 
subsequently reviewed.   

A4.2 Main findings of the consultation activities 

The  following  sections  summarise  the  main  results  of  all  three  of  the  consultation 
activities. These results are described in relation to their relevance to the five evaluation 
criteria; effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.   

A4.2.1 Effectiveness  

Survey  

In  response  to  the  survey,  most  consumers  indicated  that  the  level  of  protection 
afforded  by  the  CRD  was  either  ‘moderate’  or  ‘high’  when  buying  goods  domestically, 
and  similarly  when  buying  goods  or  services  cross-border.    Over  60%  of  consumer 
associations  answering  the  same  question  indicated  that  the  CRD  was  either  quite 
effective  or  very  effective  when  purchasing  goods  domestically,  although  their  opinion 
was  not  as  positive  regarding  the  purchasing  of  digital  content.  Survey  responses  from 
consumers  and  consumer  associations  therefore  suggested  that  the  CRD  is  generally 
considered to be effective. 

Through the surveys, national authorities indicated that they felt the provisions on pre-
contractual  information  requirements  for  distance  and  off-premises  contracts,  and  for 
the RoW to be either ‘positive’ or ‘very positive’ for consumers. 

The  survey  aimed  at  traders  questioned  their  reasons  for  not  selling  to  consumers  in 
other  EU  countries  (i.e.  aimed  to  obtain  data  on  how  effective  the  CRD  is  in  enabling 
traders to sell cross-border).  Almost half of the respondents responded that they have 
no  interest  in  selling  cross-border,  and  only  17%  of  all  respondents  indicated  that 
differences in national consumer legislation prevented them from selling cross-border.  It 
was  therefore  concluded  from  this  data  that  any  differences  in  consumer  legislation 
remaining  after  the  implementation  of  the  CRD  are  not  considered  to  be  a  significant 
barrier to cross-border trade.  Differences in consumer legislation were the main reason 
supporting the full harmonisation behind the CRD. 

268 

 
 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Similarly  to  consumers,  consumer  associations  and  national  authorities,  ECCs  indicated 
in their responses to the survey that RoW is considered to be one of the most effective 
provisions of the CRD.  The ban on pre-ticked boxes was also indicated to be one of the 
more effective  contributions of the CRD in ECC survey responses.    However, unlike the 
consumers and national authorities, ECCs indicated that the pre-contractual information 
provisions  are  not  considered  to  be  very  effective  due  to  frequent  non-compliance  and 
lack  of  enforcement.    It  was  underlined  in  survey  responses  that  there  is  room  for 
improvement  with  regard  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  pre-contractual  information 
requirements. 

Interviews 

Information  obtained  from  traders  and  trade  associations,  consumer  associations  and 
national  authorities  during  the  interviews  confirmed  that,  generally  speaking,  the 
implementation  of  harmonised  rules  across  the  MS  was  effective  in  ensuring  an  even 
playing field, particularly with the introduction of the 14 day RoW.   

Two  national  authorities  explicitly  indicated  that  the  number  of  CRD  related  complaints 
received  has  risen  since  the  introduction  of  the  CRD,  and  it  was  suggested  that  this 
indicates consumers are becoming more aware of their rights.  

Most of the consumers and their representatives however highlighted issues because of 
lack  of  compliance  and  enforcement.  Traders  and  their  representatives  were  keen  to 
highlight  aspects  related  to  the  returns  of  used  items  and  the  financial  risks  to 
companies from this. 

During the interviews, two national authorities stated that the CRD should provide a tool 
for evaluating how much of a refund a customer should receive in cases where they have 
used the product more than is required to simply test it. 

One  ECC  underlined  the  need  for  a  more  reliable  means  of  identifying  traders  as  they 
may  often  use  a  shorthand  for  their  trading  name  (e.g.  initials),  which  can  make  it 
difficult to locate them. 

Interview responses also indicated that the national authorities perceive the exemptions 
from RoW and withdrawal from digital content contracts to be less positive.  

Open public consultation 

In  response  to  the  OPC,  national  authorities  indicated  that  they  view  simplification  and 
streamlining of existing legislation to be potentially beneficial for consumers, however it 
was  stressed  that  any  streamlining  should  be  carefully  considered  and  not  compromise 
consumer  protection.    It  was  also  stated  by  consumer  organisations  that  wrong  or 
sufficient  information  affects  the  decision  of  consumers  and  for  this  reason  the 
information requirements set out under the CRD are extremely important.118 

A4.2.2 Efficiency 

Surveys 

In  response  to  the  survey,  national  authorities,  traders  and  trade  associations  all 
indicated that costs have increased for traders under the CRD; some indicate that these 

118  Civic  (2016):  Study  to  support  the  Fitness  Check  of  EU  Consumer  Law,  on  behalf  of  the  European 

Commission, p. 210 

269 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

costs are relatively low, while others report them as being high.  Costs were frequently 
referred to in the context of pre-contractual information requirements and the RoW. 

With  regard  to  the  pre-contractual  information  requirements,  the  survey  results  show 
that  these  are  particularly  burdensome  for  traders  in  the  case  of  distance  and/or  off-
premises  contracts.  Traders  provided  some  examples  of  instances  where  costs  have 
occurred  when  the  possibility  to  elaborate  was  provided  (e.g.  a  text  box  for  providing 
clarification to a response).  It was for example stated by a trader that once a good has 
been  sold  to  a  consumer  it  cannot  be  sold  as  ‘new’,  which  immediately  diminishes  the 
value of the good, even if the consumer has not used the product more than is required 
to test it.   

It was furthermore stated that, although consumers are liable for the diminished value of 
goods resulting from handling the goods more than is necessary ‘to establish the nature, 
characteristics, and functioning of the goods’ (Article 14.2), in practise it can be difficult 
to calculate the diminished value of a good, and can result in undue costs being incurred 
by either the trader or the consumer.   It was furthermore indicated in response to the 
survey that time is required for companies to check their returns have been received in 
re-saleable condition, as well as bearing the cost for the delivery (to the customer) of an 
item that was returned.   

It was also indicated by traders in response to the survey that the level of cost depends 
on the sector in which the trader is working.  For example, it was stated that costs are 
particularly high for clothes sellers as the likelihood of the consumer returning the good 
is relatively high. Industry is trying to work methods to avoid the return of used goods. 

However, it is equally important to note that, according to data received from a national 
authority  in  response  to  the  survey,  64%  of  consumers  enquiring  about  their  rights 
indicate that they intend to take action, suggesting that those consumers who are aware 
of the Directive, and consequently of their rights, view it as a beneficial tool.  And when 
questioned  about  costs  incurred,  on  the  whole  national  authorities  responding  to  the 
survey  indicated  that  relatively  low  costs  were  incurred  by  their  departments  in  the 
transposition  although  moderate  to  large  costs  were  identified  by  a  larger  number  of 
competent authorities in relation to enforcement.  

Generally  speaking,  survey  responses  indicated  that  the  CRD  is  more  suited  to  large 
retailers than SMEs, with costs incurred being more burdensome for them from having to 
adapt  their  websites  for  instance  to  provide  pre-contractual  information  –  although 
generally the responses from SMEs do not vary significantly from larger companies.  

Interviews 

During the interviews it was possible to obtain more details on specific examples of the 
types of costs incurred (mostly by traders), although it was not unfortunately possible to 
obtain a sufficient number of quantitative estimates. 

National  authorities  and  trade  associations,  similarly  to  survey  responses,  highlighted 
information  requirements  as  being  the  biggest  burden  for  both  consumers  and  traders.  
It  was  furthermore  elaborated  that  not  all  of  the  information  requirements  necessarily 
enhance  consumer  protection,  as  consumers  do  not  always  read  the  information 
provided.  It was also underlined that it is particularly difficult for traders to comply with 
these requirements when the information is to be viewed on mobile phones. As a result, 
the  use  of  hyperlinks  was  suggested  as  a  potential  option  to  provide  further  pre-
contractual information on request.  

It was also emphasised that costs can be particularly high for traders when selling cross-
border, as the cost of returning faulty goods, which the trader has to bear, can be high.  

270 

 
 
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

Difficulties  were  also  said  to  occur  when  the  consumer  has  moved  to  another  MS  since 
initially purchasing the product and then subsequently request a  replacement or  refund 
for a faulty good – it is not clear in such cases whether the trader is still to bear the cost 
for returning the faulty good. 

One national authority stated that there is a lack of clarity with regard to the meaning of 
‘durable  medium’  in  reference  to  Article  7  which  sets  out  obligations  for  traders  to 
provide information on a durable medium for off-premises contracts.  This lack of clarity 
is  said  to  result  in  additional  costs  for  traders  who  provide  a  paper  version  of  the 
information  or  who  have  created  a  website  for  these  purposes,  or  in  cases  where  it  is 
decided that the information has not been provided on a ‘durable medium’ (e.g. when it 
is decided that a website does not count as a ‘durable medium’).  Some clarification may 
therefore be required in this required to improve efficiency. 

It  was  also  commented  that  some  market  surveillance  authorities  had  to  bear  costs  to 
adapt to the new legal regime, although no specific examples were provided. 

Open public consultation 

Traders  and  trade  associations  indicated  in  response  to  the  OPC  the  there  is  a  need  to 
simplify the information requirements specified in the CRD, as did national authorities.119 

Traders  and  trade  associations  also  highlighted  a  need  for  the  CRD  to  clarify  that  the 
consumer should inform the trader of the decision to withdraw from the contract via the 
designated  withdrawal  form/tool,  and  only  if  no  such  form  or  tool  exists  can  the 
consumer choose their own way of returning the good120. 

Results from the OPC similarly indicated, in a general manner, that costs were incurred 
by traders as a result of the CRD.  

A4.2.3 Relevance 

Surveys 

The  vast  majority  of  consumer  associations  responding  to  the  survey  agreed  that  the 
objectives of the CRD are still relevant to consumer needs.  Data received from traders 
and trade associations in response to the survey  suggested that they consider the CRD 
to  be  relevant  to  the  needs  of  ‘consumers  and/or  traders’;  55%  of  trade  associations 
responded that it is ‘very relevant’. 

Survey  results  indicate  that  consumers  regard  displaying  the  total  price  for  product  or 
service  to  be  the  most  important  aspect  of  the  CRD.    While  areas  for  improvement 
highlighted by consumer associations in response to the survey included simplification of 
pre-contractual information requirements. 

In response to the survey, ECCs highlighted ‘free trials’ and ‘digital content’ as being the 
two  main  gaps  in  the  consumer  protection  provided  by  the  CRD.  The  framework 
applicable  to  the  share  economy  and  online  platforms  is  also  a  reason  for  legal 
uncertainty and further action has been called upon the Commission to clarify this. 

Interviews 

119 Ibid. p.211 
120 Ibid. p.209 

271 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

During  the  interviews,  national  authorities  underlined  that  they  believe  free  online 
services should be covered by the Directive.  This is due to the fact that those using free 
online  services  are  effectively  paying  for  the  services  with  their  data,  which  has 
commercial value.  

Open public consultation 

No information was obtained in relation to the relevance of the CRD, via the OPC. 

A4.2.4 Coherence 

Surveys 

The surveys did not highlight any main issues with the coherence of the CRD and other 
legislation. 

Interviews  

During  the  interviews  it  was  stated  by  national  authorities  that  there  are  several 
directives  relating 
law  with  similar  (although  slightly  different) 
requirements, which can be burdensome for traders to comply with  – it was stated that 
such requirements should be consolidated. 

to  consumer 

Open public consultation 

Papers  provided  under  the  OPC  underlined  that  several  requirements  were  covered  by 
more  than  one  Directive  (e.g.  information  requirements).  And  two  submissions  in 
response to the OPC indicated that price indication rules are covered by the PID, UCPD 
and  sector  specific  legislation,  which  often  leads  to  confusion.    It  was  therefore 
recommended that legislation should be streamlined and consolidated in this regard.121 

A4.2.5 EU added value 

Surveys  

National  authority  responses  to  the  survey  highlighted  the  resulting  uniformity  and 
harmonisation  of  consumer  rights  across  Europe  as  the  main  beneficial  contribution  of 
the  CRD.    It  was  furthermore  stated  by  national  authorities  in  response  to  the  survey 
that  this  uniformity  has  increased  cross-border  sales,  broadened  the  market,  enhanced 
legal certainty, and resulted in compliance cost reductions. 

Interviews  

However,  a  small  number  of  national  competent  authorities  did  also  state  during 
interviews that arrangements or rules for consumer protection already existed or would 
have been implemented at a national level without the CRD. 

Some consumer associations stated during interview that the information required by the 
pre-contractual  information  requirements  is  often  not  read  by  consumers,  and  that  the 
amount of information available can be overwhelming for some.  

Open public consultation 

No information was obtained during the OPC on the EU added value of the CRD. 

121 Ibid p.185 

272 

 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

A4.3  Inconsistencies  and  agreement  between  results  from  the  different 

consultation activities 

Results  from  all  consultation  activities  were  generally  in  agreement  for  the  different 
stakeholder  groups.    All  stakeholder  groups  raised  areas  of  the  CRD  requiring 
improvement according to their different needs, and the different consultation activities 
allowed varying levels of detail to be obtained.   

Although  the  OPC  did  provide  some  useful  data,  there  was  not  a  sufficient  quantity  in 
relation to the CRD specifically, due to the OPC covering several pieces of legislation.  In 
this regard, the survey compensated by generating a large quantity of data specifically in 
relation  to  the  CRD,  and  interviews  enabled  responses  to  be  explored  further  and  for 
more  specific  examples  to  be  provided  in  order  to  deepen  understanding  of  the  issues 
and arrive at a balanced view. 

The main points of agreement were the following: 

• 

the level of harmonisation afforded throughout Europe by the CRD has improved the 
level  of  protection  for  all  consumers,  and  has  generally  increased  the  specificity  of 
national legislation. 

•  pre-contractual  information  requirements  are  considered  to  be  an  issue  by  both 
traders    and  consumers.    Information  obtained  during  the  survey  and  interviews 
underlined that businesses generally view these requirements as burdensome, while 
information  received  from  the  OPC  indicated  that  some  consumer  associations  have 
pointed out that the level of information can be overwhelming for some consumers.  
In  this  way  the  information  obtained  from  the  different  consultation  activities  is  in 
agreement  and  suggests  that  there  is  potential  for  streamlining  the  information 
requirements  where  it  does  not  impact  upon  the  level  of  consumer  protection 
afforded. 

• 

the full range of stakeholders generally believe the CRD to be relevant to the needs 
of consumers, however all stakeholders highlighted areas requiring improvement.   

Perhaps  one  issue  where  stakeholders  have  shown  disagreement  is  the  impacts  of 
regulatory choices and the level of harmonisation  achieved by the CRD. Although, most 
respondents  agreed  that  differences  in  consumer  legislation  remaining  after  the 
implementation  of  the  CRD  are  not  a  significant  barrier  to  cross-border  trade  and  the 
CRD  has  achieved  a  significant  level  of  harmonisation,  some  stakeholders  mentioned 
that the regulatory choices work against the principles of harmonisation. Indeed, 71% of 
traders who indicated in response to the survey that they trade cross-border and finding 
difficulties in so doing122 quoted national legislation as a main difficulty to selling in other 
EU countries.   Nearly half of the traders responding to the survey however are just not 
interested in selling cross-border.  

122 For those that do trade cross-border (114 traders responding), 47% mentioned that there are some minor 
or significant difficulties.  Of those that mentioned that there are some minor or significant difficulties, 71% 
agreed  that  differences  in  national  legislation  were  one  of  the  main  difficulties  when  selling  in  other  EU 
countries (32 traders indicated this as a difficulty). 

273 

 
 
 
                                                           
Study on the application of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU 

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
D
S
-
0
2
-
1
7
-
4
3
5
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2838/331610