1 / 29

Geraint Howells Professor of Commercial Law Manchester University

Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law: Current State and Future Challenges. Geraint Howells Professor of Commercial Law Manchester University. Scope of talk. Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

cicely
Download Presentation

Geraint Howells Professor of Commercial Law Manchester University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law: Current State and Future Challenges Geraint Howells Professor of Commercial Law Manchester University

  2. Scope of talk • Unfair Commercial Practices Directive • Four topics covered in Proposed Consumer Rights Directive • Doorstep • Distance • Sale • Unfair Terms

  3. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues • Issue relating to EU acquis • Inconsistencies • Legal gaps • General clauses • Issues relating to domestic implementation • Regulatory traditions • Incorrect implementation • Remedying defects in acquis by using minimum clause • Ensuring coherency with general law • Delay in transposition • Enforcement traditions (deal with at end)

  4. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues EU Acquis • Lack of consistency at EU level e.g:- (i) Consumer; (ii) Trader/business/ organizer/vendor/supplier/seller; (iii) Withdrawal period; (iv) Consequences of failing to provide information

  5. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues EU Acquis • Legal gaps • Doorstep – concluded by remote communication/contracts on street or public transport/burden of proof • Distance selling – does the notice only have to be despatched in withdrawal period/ coverage of digital products • Sale – remedies in relation to damages/software/spare parts and after-sales service/cross border enforcement • Unfair terms – lack of monitoring of terms in advance/uncertain consequences of unfairness and lack of transparency/limited impact of rulings

  6. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues EU Acquis • General clauses • Radical break from tradition in some systems e.g. good faith in unfair terms in UK: see Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc [2001] UKHL 52 and in relation to unfair commercial practices • 7 member states do not (explicitly) mention good faith in unfair terms law • Member states may apply their own conception of the concept • Can you harmonise on basis of general clause: Freiburger Kommunalbauten v Hofstetter Case C-237/02 [2004] ECR I-3403

  7. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues Member States • Regulatory traditions • Role of civil, criminal and self-regulatory law • Whether consumer law part of general law or a discrete legal category • Form of laws – [2001] ECR I-3541 Commission v Netherlands(relying on existing law) Commission v Sweden [2002] ECR I-4147 (relying on preparatory text)

  8. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues Member States • Incorrect implementation • UCPD – professional diligence as an empirical standard/lack of reference to information duties in Annex II/disaggregation of black list • Doorstep -exc of contracts concluded by notaries/withdrawal period starting before info supplied/exc of contracts concluded during excursions • Distance – granting total rather than partial exemptions/no general obligation to confirm prior information/ withdrawal period/lack of duty to inform goods unavailable • Sale - definition of sale/lack of general conformity requirement or ambiguity/application of remedies/no reversed burden of proof • Unfair Terms –need for consumer to invoke/application to single use pre-formulated contracts/only transposing part of annex/principle of transparency/rights of consumer associations.

  9. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues Member States • Delays in transposition • Varies from State to State and • Directive to Directive • Depending on national procedures • Discreteness of area of law • Cut and paste or integration into national law • Maximal harmonisation can cause delay due to need to remove legislation • Minimal harmonisation can cause delays through debates on enhancing laws to remedy gaps and integrating with general law to promote coherency

  10. Transposition, Implementation and Enforcement of EU Consumer Law – General Issues • Positive notes • EU has improved quality of protection in many states • Fundamental policies have been largely aligned • Common concepts and terminology developed • But need to strike right balance between EU and national competencies • Is coherency of national beyond consumer law important?

  11. Case Study on UCPD and MCA – The UK experience • Major reform of domestic law in relation to UCPD due to maximal harmonisation • Need to reform existing laws due to “transactional decision test” and prescriptive mandatory pre-contractual information • 22 laws affected including repeal of landmark legislation such as Trade Descriptions Act 1968 • Introduction of general clause • Perceived positively despite some doubts over future interpretation and enforcement

  12. European Regulatory Architecture of UCPD and MCA • Twin track • Consumers (maximum harmonisation) UCPD • Traders (minimum harmonisation) MCA • Consumer law becomes an “isolated island” • See Transposition and Enforcement of the Directive on unfair commercial practices (2005/29/EC) and the Directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising (2006/114/EC) EP Briefing (Čeponytė, Schulte-Nölke and Busch)

  13. Transposition Findings • Maintaining unified domestic approach (=divergence from European architecture) • Austria • Germany • Consumer Codes or Consumer Protection Acts • (= potential fragmentation of national laws) • Belgium • France • Italy • Civil Code • Czech?

  14. Proposed Consumer Rights Directive- addressing concerns of lack of uniformity • Improper implementation • Broader scope to implementing measures • Taking advantage of options or measure in directives that leave choices to Member States • Use of minimal harmonisation clause See EC Consumer Law Compendium

  15. EU Directives do not represent the limits of national laws Broader implementing measures • Doorstep • Definition of consumer • Additional situations • Less exemptions • Distance • Definition of consumer • Additional situations • Less exemptions

  16. EU Directives do not represent the limits of national laws • Sale • Apply to other supply contracts • Extend definition of consumer, seller and consumer goods • Unfair terms • Definition of consumer • Covering terms reflecting mandatory provisions • Individually negotiated terms

  17. What happens at limits of EU law? • Is everything outside scope of directive left to member states? or • If a matter is not covered does that mean Community has positively decided not to regulate and Member States cannot provide greater protection?

  18. Use of minimum harmonisation • The following national measures are potentially threatened by Proposed Consumer Rights Directive • Doorstep • Additional information requirements • Standard format for information • Extended right of withdrawal • More favourable remedies (time limits and liens) • Bans • Licensing requirements • Time restrictions

  19. Use of minimum harmonisation • Distance • Bans on marketing of medicinal products • Burden of proof • Additional information requirements • Standard format for information • Extended right of withdrawal

  20. Use of minimum harmonisation • Sales • Free choice of remedy to consumer • Longer time periods • Rescission for minor defects • Mandatory guarantees • No duty to notify defects (optional in present Directive)

  21. Use of minimum harmonisation • Unfair terms • Review of incorporation of terms • Omitted reference to good faith • Blacklist • Take account of post-contractual events • Covers subject matter and price • Broader scope for adjustment • Standard Terms Register

  22. Consumer law becoming in “island”-the rush to become non-consumers? • Some laws or aspects of some laws can be isolated and only apply to consumers • However there is often an interaction with general law • We have noted in relation to UCPD different approaches taken as to the need for a unified approach • This is also pronounced in the context of sales law and unfair terms • Less important for doorstep and distance which were developed to meet consumer needs • Case study of sales law

  23. Sales Law in Poland • Zoll “Remedies for Non-performance in the Proposed Consumer Rights Directive and the Europeanisation of Private Law” in Howells/Schulze Modernising and Harmonising Consumer Contract Law • Poland did not integrate sales law in Civil Code (that was Poland’s choice) • Some rules less protective for consumers than civil code • Should consumer be allowed to waive status as consumer?

  24. Sale Law in UK • If maximum harmonisation under Consumer Rights Directive the choice will be between:- • subjecting all sales to consumer sales regime • having a less protective regime for consumers with regard to right to reject and duty to notify

  25. The need to differentiate contexts • Do we need to consider more carefully which rules need to be harmonised • Composition • Labelling • Content of advertisements • Standard form contracts • Which rules it may be desirable to harmonise • Right of withdrawal • Information duties (risk of overload and problems of uncertain scope) • Which rules may not need harmonisation • General (quality) standards • Remedies

  26. Points to stress • There can be significant advantages to maximal harmonisation and it may be essential in some contexts • BUT there are costs. The price must be worth paying.

  27. Important debate due to the costs of maximal harmonisation • Loss of traditional forms of protection • Consumer protection limited to European law level of protection • Consumer laws separated from general law (“ghettoised”?) • Consumers may be less well protected than under existing law • Risk of over-regulation due to need to find common accord e.g. information obligation overload • Without safeguard clause or expeditious comitology procedure it may be hard to react to new concerns

  28. Enforcement challenges • Growth in use of general clauses • How to ensure equal application? Harmonisation in practice as well as theory. • To what extent is it legitimate to take local context into account? Freiburger Kommunalbauten v Hofstetter Case C-237/02 [2004] ECR I-3403 • Injunctions now universal technique • But local issues: OFT v Foxtons [2008] EWHC 1662 • Injunctions Directive and specialist procedures • Different actors – national consumer agencies, local agencies, specialist agencies, consumer organisations • Different nature of consumer organisations – often linked to state funding

  29. Enforcement challenges • Some states see role for criminal law • UK/France • Local flavour – due diligence law • Civil law • Broader in some states i.e. unfair commercial practices • Remedies vary greatly • Acceptance of soft law • Organisation of consumer enforcement • Role of consumer organisations • Strong national bodies – Ombudsmen, OFT, Polish HOPCC (new bodies g.e. Dutch consumer authority) • Decentralised – Germany Länder, TSOs, DGCCRF • Cross-border problems • Motivating states to have concern for citizens of other EU states • Co-ordinating EU, National, Regional and local enforcement

More Related