[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

[pic] | KUMMISSJONI TAL-KOMUNITAJIET EWROPEJ |

Brussels, 21.9.2006

Brussel 21.9.2006

COM(2006) 514 final

KUMM(2006) 514 finali

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

KOMUNIKAZZJONI MILL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-KUNSILL, LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U LILL-KUMITAT EKONOMIKU U SOĊJALI EWROPEW

on the implementation of Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts

dwar l-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva 1997/7/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill ta’ l-20 ta’ Mejju 1997 dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Konsumaturi fir-rigward ta' Kuntratti li jsiru mill-bogħod

PREFACE

DAĦLA

The purpose of this Communication is to report to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation of Directive 1997/7/EC on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts by the Member States .

L-għan ta’ din il-Komunikazzjoni hija li tirrapporta lill-Kunsill, lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew dwar l-implimentazzjoni tad- Direttiva 1997/7/KE dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Konsumaturi fir-rigward ta' Kuntratti mill-bogħod mill-Istati Membri.

It also sets out a questionnaire for public consultation at Annex II. The aims of the questionnaire and the procedure for answering it can also be found in this Annex.

Hija tistabbilixxi wkoll stħarriġgħal konsultazzjoni pubblika fl-Anness II. L-għan ta’ l-istħarriġ u l-proċedura tat-tweġibiet jistgħu jinstabu wkoll f’dan l-Anness.

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

KOMUNIKAZZJONI MILL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-KUNSILL, LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U LILL-KUMITAT EKONOMIKU U SOĊJALI EWROPEW

on the implementation of Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts (Text with EEA relevance)

dwar l-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva 1997/7/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill ta’ l-20 ta’ Mejju 1997 dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Konsumaturi fir-rigward ta' Kuntratti li jsiru mill-bogħod (Test b’relevanza għaż-ŻEE)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WERREJ

PREFACE 2

DAĦLA 2

1. Introduction 4

1. Daħla 4

2. The Main Provisions of the Directive 5

2. Id-Dispożizzjonijiet Ewlenin tad-Direttiva 5

3. Definitions – Article 2 6

3. Id-definizzjonijiet - Artikolu 2 6

4. Scope of Application – Article 3 exemptions 7

4. Ambitu ta’ l-Applikazzjoni – eżenzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 3 7

5. Prior information requirements – Article 4 8

5. Ħtiġijiet ta’ tagħrif minn qabel – l-artikolu 4 8

6. Written confirmation of information – Article 5 9

6. Konferma ta' l-informazzjoni bil-miktub – Artikolu 5 9

7. Right of withdrawal – Article 6 10

7. Id-dritt ta' rtirar – Artikolu 6 10

8. Performance – Article 7 11

8. L-eżekuzzjoni - Artikolu 7 11

9. Restrictions on the use of certain means of distance communication – Article 10 12

9. Restrizzjonijiet fuq l-użu ta' ċerti mezzi ta' komunikazzjoni mill-bogħod – Artikolu 10 12

10. Conclusions 12

10. Konklużjonijiet 12

ANNEX I 13

ANNESS I 13

ANNEX II 15

ANNESS II 15

ANNEX III 18

ANNESS III 19

ANNEX IV 19

ANNESS IV 20

1. INTRODUCTION

1. DAħLA

All Member States have transposed Directive 1997/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the Protection of Consumers in respect of Distance Contracts[1] (“the Directive”) into national law (see Annex I). In this document (the “Report”), the Commission will report on the implementation of the Directive, as provided by its Article 15(4)[2]. Delays in compliance by the Commission with Article 15(4) were initially due to late transposition by some of the 15 Member States. The Commission decided to postpone publication of the Report till after the accession of the 10 Member States, in order to produce a Report which covers the situation in all 25 Member States.

L-ISTATI MEMBRI KOLLHA TTRASPONEW ID-DIRETTIVA 1997/7/KE TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL TA’ L-20 TA’ MEJJU 1997 DWAR IL-PROTEZZJONI TAL-KONSUMATURI FIR-RIGWARD TA' KUNTRATTI MILL-BOGħOD [1] (“id-Direttiva”) f’liġi nazzjonali (ara l-Anness I). F’dan id-dokument (ir-“Rapport”), il-Kummissjoni se tirrapporta dwar l-implimentazzjoni tad-Direttiva kif prevista fl-Artikolu 15(4)[2] tagħha. Dewmien fil-konformità mill-Kummissjoni ma’ l-Artikolu 15(4) fil-bidu kienu minħabba dewmien fit-traspożizzjoni minn xi wħud mill-15-il Stat Membru. Il-Kummissjoni ddeċidiet li tipposponi l-pubblikazzjoni tar-Rapport sa wara l-adeżjoni ta’ l-10 Stati Membri, sabiex tipproduċi Rapport li jkopri s-sitwazzjoni fil-25 Stati Membri kollha.

A questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) is annexed to this Report (Annex II). The aim of this Questionnaire is to consult interested parties on a number of issues related to the Directive. In particular, the Commission will look at whether the national divergences in transposition, emanating from the regulatory options in the Directive and the use of the minimum clause at Article 14 which states that Member States may introduce or maintain more stringent provisions to ensure a higher level of consumer protection as long as these measures are compatible with the Treaty, have had an impact on the Internal Market and affected business and consumer confidence in cross border trade.

Stħarriġ (l-“Istħarriġ”) huwa mehmuż ma' dan ir-Rapport (l-Anness II). L-għan ta’ dan l-istħarriġ huwa li jikkonsulta l-partijiet interessati dwar numru ta' kwistjonijiet relatati ma' din id-Direttiva. B’mod partikolari, il-Kummissjoni se tara jekk id-diverġenzi nazzjonali fit-traspożizzjoni, li joħorġu mill-għażliet regolatorji fid-Direttiva u l-użu tal-klawżola minima fl-Artikolu 14 li tiddikjara li Stati Membri jistgħu jintroduċu jew iżommu aktar dispożizzjonijiet iebsa biex jiżguraw livell ogħla ta’ protezzjoni tal-konsumatur sakemm dawn il-miżuri huma kompatibbli mat-Trattat, kellhom impatt fuq is-Suq Intern u affettwaw in-negozju u l-kunfidenza tal-konsumatur f’kummerċ bejn il-fruntieri.

The Commission does not consider it appropriate to put forward any proposal for revising the Directive until the diagnostic phase of the review of the consumer acquis communautaire ( the “acquis” ) is concluded (see Annex III). This review aims at assessing possible failings in terms of consumer protection, in particular in the light of new marketing practices and technologies, such as internet and mobile commerce, and identifying inconsistencies between the different consumer directives under review. On the basis of the outcome of the consultation launched by the Questionnaire and of the results of the review, the Commission will consider the need for further legislative initiatives in the field of distance selling in accordance with the better regulation objectives pursued by the Commission in terms of simplification of the regulatory environment[3].

Il-Kummissjoni ma tqisx li huwa xieraq li tressaq proposti biex tiġi riveduta d-Direttiva sakemm il-fażi dijanjostika ta' l-analiżi ta' l-acquis communautaire tal-konsumatur (l-“acquis”) tintemm (ara l-Anness III). Din l-analiżi għandha l-għan li tanalizza nuqqasijiet possibbli f'termini ta' protezzjoni tal-konsumatur, b'mod partikolari fid-dawl ta' prassi u teknoloġiji ġodda tal-marketing, bħall-internet u kummerċ tal-mowbajl, u fl-identifikar ta' l-inkonsistenzi bejn id-direttivi differenti tal-konsumatur taħt analiżi. Fuq il-bażi tar-riżultat tal-konsultazzjoni mnedija mill-Istħarriġ u tar-riżultati ta’ l-analiżi, il-Kummissjoni se tikkunsidra l-bżonn għal aktar inizjattivi leġiżlattivi fil-qasam tal-bejgħ mill-bogħod f'konformità ma' l-għanijiet ta’ regolamentazzjoni aħjar imwettqa mill-Kummissjoni f'termini ta' semplifikazzjoni ta' l-ambjent regolatorju[3].

In considering the national transpositions of the Directive, the Commission has often made use of translations. Some of the national transposition problems identified in this Report may therefore emanate from translation problems.

Il-Kummissjoni spiss għamlet użu mit-traduzzjonijiet meta tikkonsidra t-traspożizzjonijiet nazzjonali tad-Direttiva. Uħud mill-problemi nazzjonali ta’ traspożizzjoni identifikati f’dan ir-Rapport jistgħu għalhekk joħorġu minn problemi ta' traduzzjoni.

2. THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF THE DIRECTIVE

2. ID-DISPOżIZZJONIJIET EWLENIN TAD-DIRETTIVA

The Directive aims at ensuring that consumers, who buy goods or services via distance selling means, hence without any face-to-face contact with the supplier, are in no worse a position than consumers purchasing with face-to-face contact.

Din id-Direttiva għandha l-għan li tiżgura li konsumaturi, li jixtru oġġetti jew servizzi permezz ta’ mezzi ta’ bejgħ mill-bogħod, għalhekk mingħajr ebda kuntatt wiċċ imbwiċċ mal-fornitur, mhumiex f’pużizzjoni agħar minn konsumaturi li jixtru b’kuntatt wiċċ imbwiċċ.

The Directive covers both goods and services. However, Article 3 limits the application of the Directive by excluding certain types of contracts from all or some of the Directive’s provisions. These exemptions are justified on the basis of the nature of the underlying goods or services. Financial services, due to their complexity and their value, are amongst these exemptions and have been covered in the Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive 2002/65/EC[4], which will also undergo a review in the near future[5]. For this reason, financial services will not be covered in this Report. The review of Directive 2002/65/EC will nevertheless take into account the relevant findings of the review of this Directive (e.g. findings on “durable medium”).

Id-Direttiva tkopri kemm l-oġġetti kif ukoll is-servizzi. Madankollu, l-Artikolu 3 jillimita l-applikazzjoni tad-Direttiva billi jeskludi ċerti tipi ta’ kuntratti minn xi wħud mid-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva jew minn kollha kemm huma. Dawn l-eżenzjonijiet huma ġġustifikati fuq il-bażi tan-natura ta’ l-oġġetti jew servizzi li hemm taħt. Servizzi finanzjarji, minħabba l-kumplessità u l-valur tagħhom, huma fost dawn l-eżenzjonijiet u ġew koperti fid-Direttiva 2002/65/KE[4] tat-Tqegħid fis-Suq b’Distanza ta’ Servizzi Finanzjarji li se tgħaddi minn analiżi fil-ġejjieni[5]. Għal din ir-raġuni, is-servizzi finanzjarji mhux se jkunu koperti f’dan ir-Rapport. Ir-reviżjoni tad-Direttiva 2002/65/KE madankollu se tikkunsidra s-sejbiet rilevanti tar-reviżjoni ta’ din id-Direttiva (pereżempju sejbiet dwar “mezz sod”). L-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva jniżżel informazzjoni li l-konsumatur irid ikun fornut biha qabel ma jidħol f'kuntratt ta' distanza. Din l-informazzjoni tikkorrispondi ma’ informazzjoni li tkun disponibbli lill-konsumatur jekk ikun qiegħed jixtri wiċċ imbwiċċ, pereżempju, karatteristiċi ewlenin ta’ l-oġġetti jew servizzi u l-prezz inkluż it-taxxi. Din id-Direttiva tippreskrivi wkoll il-mod u l-ħin kif din l-informazzjoni trid tingħata.

Article 4 of the Directive lists information the consumer must be supplied with before entering into a distance contract. This information corresponds to information which would be available to a consumer if he were purchasing face-to-face e.g. main characteristics of the goods or services and price including taxes. The Directive also prescribes the manner in which this information is to be given and its timing.

Biex jipproteġi l-konsumaturi wara l-konklużjoni tal-kuntratt, l-Artikolu 5 jipprevedi li konsumatur irid dejjem jingħata indirizz li fih jista’ jagħmel ilment. Din il-ħtieġa trid titwettaq bil-kitba jew b’mezz sod ieħor f'limitu ta’ żmien speċifiku. Barra minn hekk, skond l-Artikolu 5(1) bosta mill-informazzjoni ta’ qabel, flimkien ma’ informazzjoni oħra li hija rilevanti wara li l-kuntratt ikun beda jaħdem pereżempju fis-servizzi ta' wara l-bejgħ u l-garanziji, irid ukoll jiġi kkonfermat b'dan il-mod f'bosta ċirkustanzi.

To protect consumers after conclusion of the contract, Article 5 provides that a consumer must always be given an address to which he can complain. This requirement must be fulfilled in writing or in another durable medium within a specific timeframe. In addition, under Article 5(1) most of the prior information, along with extra information which is relevant after the contract has been entered into e.g. existing after sales services and guarantees, is also to be confirmed in this way in most circumstances.

Peress li konsumatur li jixtri oġġetti jew servizzi minn distanza ma jistax janalizza bis-sħiħ jekk ix-xiri tiegħu jikkorrispondix għal dak li għandu bżonn meta jagħmel l-ordni, id-Direttiva fiha d-dritt ta’ l-irtirar ta’ ta’ l-anqas 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol. Bl-eżerċitazzjoni ta’ dan id-dritt, il-konsumatur ma għandux għalfejn jiġġustifika d-deċiżjoni tiegħu. M’għandux għax jeħel l-ebda penali, u jrid jingħata l-flus lura immedjatament. Jista’ jkollu jħallas biss ta’ l-ispejjeż biex jirritorna l-oġġetti lura. Taħt l-Artikolu 6(3), ċerti oġġetti u servizzi huma eżentati mid-dritt ta' rtirar minħabba n-natura tagħhom (pereżempju oġġetti li jitħassru).

Since a consumer who buys goods or services at a distance cannot fully assess whether his purchase corresponds to what he needs when making the order, the Directive contains a right of withdrawal of at least 7 working days. In exercising this right, the consumer does not have to justify his decision. He should not incur any penalty, and must be refunded promptly. He may only be charged for the cost of return. Under Article 6(3), certain goods and services are exempted from the right of withdrawal due to their nature (e.g. perishable goods).

Id-Direttiva tipproteġi wkoll lill-konsumaturi minn dewmien esaġerat fl-eżekuzzjoni. Għalhekk taħt l-Artikolu 7, il-kuntratt irid jiġi eżegwit fi żmien 30 jum mill-jum wara li l-ordni tintbagħat lill-fornitur. L-Istati Membri ngħataw id-diskrezzjoni li jdaħħlu dispożizzjonijiet dwar oġġetti jew servizzi ta’ sostituzzjoni fejn dawk oriġinarjament ordnati mhumiex disponibbli. Meta din id-diskrezzjoni ma tiġix eżerċitata jew il-fornitur ma jipprovdix sostituzzjoni, konsumatur huwa intitolat għal rimbors sħiħ fi żmien 30 jum.

The Directive also protects consumers from excessive delays in performance. Hence under Article 7, the contract must be performed within 30 days of the day after the order was sent to the supplier. Discretion was granted to Member States to introduce provisions on replacement goods or services where those originally ordered are unavailable. Where this discretion has not been exercised or a supplier does not provide a replacement, a consumer is entitled to a full refund within 30 days.

L-Artikolu 10 jitlob il-kunsens minn qabel tal-konsumatur meta fornitur jagħmel użu ta’ magna tal-fax jew magna ta’ ċempil awtomatiku. Mezzi oħra ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza jistgħu jintużaw biss fejn ma hemmx oġġezzjoni mill-konsumatur.

Article 10 requires the prior consent of the consumer when a supplier makes use of a fax machine or automatic calling machine. Other means of distance communication can only be used where there is no objection from the consumer.

Dan ir-Rapport ma jkoprix id-dispożizzjonijiet fl-Artikolu 9 dwar bejgħ mhux mixtieq peress li dawn se jkunu ssostitwiti u armonizzati bis-sħiħ mill-Artikolu 15 tad-Direttiva tal-Prassi Kummerċjali Inġusti (UCP)[6]. Id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 8 dwar ħlas bil-kard ukoll mhux se jiġu diskussi fil-kuntest ta’ dan ir-Rapport fid-dawl tan-negozjati li għaddejjin dwar il-Proposta tal-Kummissjoni dwar Servizzi ta’ Pagament[7] li jipproponu t-tħassir ta’ l-Artikolu 8. Id-dispożizzjonijiet dwar rimedju (l-Artikolu 11) se jkunu kkunsidrati fil-kuntest wiesa’ tar-reviżjoni u tax-xogħol tal-Kummissjoni dwar ir-rimedju.

This Report does not cover the provisions at Article 9 on inertia selling since these will be replaced and fully harmonised by Article 15 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCP)[6]. The provisions of Article 8 on payment by card will also not be discussed in the context of this Report in the light of the ongoing negotiations on the Commission Proposal on Payment Services[7] which proposes the deletion of Article 8. The provisions on redress (Article 11) will be considered in the broader context of the review and the Commission’s work on redress.

3. ID-DEFINIZZJONIJIET - ARTIKOLU 2

3. DEFINITIONS – ARTICLE 2

L-Artikolu 2 jiddefinixxi t-termini ewlenin użati fid-Direttiva. Id-definizzjoni ta’ “ konsumatur ” u “ fornitur ” mhumiex speċifiċi għar-regolament ta’ bejgħ mill-bogħod u se jitqiesu fil-kuntest wiesa’ tar-reviżjoni ta’ l-acquis.

Article 2 defines key terms used throughout the Directive. The definition of “ consumer ” and “ supplier ” are not specific to the regulation of distance sales and will be considered in the broader context of the review of the acquis.

Id-definizzjoni ta’ “ kuntratt ta’ distanza ” fl-Artikolu 2(1) ma tax bidu għal problemi speċifiċi. L-Istati Membri ġeneralment segwew il-kliem tad-Direttiva pjuttost b’mod leali. Minkejja li l-Kummissjoni ma rċevitx ilmenti speċifiċi dwar il-kunċett ta' " bejgħ mill-bogħod organizzat jew skema ta' forniment ta' servizz ", tħoss li l-konsumaturi jistgħu ma jkunux konxji li d-Direttiva ma tapplikax fejn fornitur jinnegozja mill-bogħod fuq bażi ad-hoc. Bosta Stati Membri inklużi Franza, il-Latvja u l-Islovakkja ma ttransponewx dan il-kunċett, forsi biex jegħlbu din il-problema.

The definition of “ distance contract ” at Article 2(1) has not given rise to specific problems. Member States have generally followed the wording of the Directive relatively faithfully. Although the Commission has not received specific complaints concerning the notion of “organised distance sales or service provision scheme” , it feels that consumers may not be aware that the Directive does not apply where a supplier trades at a distance on an ad-hoc basis. Several Member States including France, Latvia and Slovakia have not transposed this notion, maybe to overcome this problem.

Il-Kummissjoni temmen li d-definizzjoni attwali ta’ “ mezz ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza ” hija flessibbli biżżejjed biex tkopri l-mezzi ġodda ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza bħal m-kummerċ (i.e. kummerċ li jseħħ permezz tas-servizz ta’ messaġġi qosra). It-traspożizzjoni madankollu teħtieġ li tiġi ċċarata ma’ ċerti Stati Membri. Ir-Repubblika Ċeka, pereżempju, tidher li eskludiet “ il-korrispondenza ”.

The Commission believes that the current definition of “means of distance communication” is flexible enough to cover new means of distance communication such as m-commerce (i.e. commerce undertaken by short message service). Its transposition nevertheless needs to be clarified with certain Member States. The Czech Republic, for instance, appears to have excluded “correspondence”.

Ir-Repubblika Ċeka, id-Danimarka, il-Ġermanja, Franza, il-Greċja, il-Latvja, il-Polonja, l-Iżvezja, l-Awstrija, is-Slovakkja u s-Slovenja ma pprovdewx lill-Kummissjoni b’traspożizzjoni tad-definizzjoni ta’ “ operatur ta’ mezzi ta’ komunikazzjoni ta' distanza " filwaqt li t-traspożizzjonijiet ta' Spanja, tal-Litwanja, ta' Malta u ta' l-Olanda jeħtieġ li jiġu ċċarati.

The Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Sweden, Austria, Slovakia and Slovenia have not provided the Commission with a transposition of the definition of “operator of means of distance communication” whereas Spain, Lithuania, Malta and the Netherlands’ transpositions need to be clarified.

Kwistjonijiet oħrajn li għandhom x’jaqsmu mad-definizzjonijiet se jidhru f’partijiet oħrajn ta’ dan ir-Rapport, kif u meta jinqalgħu.

Further questions relating to definitions will appear in other parts of this Report, as and when they arise.

4. AMBITU TA’ L-APPLIKAZZJONI – EżENZJONIJIET TA’ L-ARTIKOLU 3

4. SCOPE OF APPLICATION – ARTICLE 3 EXEMPTIONS

L-Artikolu 3 jillimita l-ambitu tad-Direttiva billi jeskludi ċerti tipi ta’ kuntratti ta’ distanza minn xi wħud mid-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva jew minn kollha kemm huma. Il-Kummissjoni jeħtieġ li tistabbilixxi jekk l-eżenzjonijiet għadhomx xierqa, jekk hemmx bżonn li jiġu riveduti, imkabbra jew revokati. Dan ir-Rapport se jqis numru ta’ problemi li ltaqgħet magħhom il-Kummissjoni.

Article 3 limits the scope of the Directive by excluding certain distance contracts from all or part of the Directive’s provisions. The Commission needs to establish whether the exemptions are still appropriate, whether they need to be revised, expanded or repealed. This Report will consider a number of problems encountered by the Commission.

L-Istati Membri ttrasponew dawn l-eżenzjonijiet f’modi differenti. Pereżempju, l-Olanda tidher li eskludiet biss il-kostruzzjoni ta’ proprjetà immobbli iżda mhux il-bejgħ tagħha.

Member States have transposed these exemptions in different ways. For example, the Netherlands only appear to have excluded the construction of immovable property but not its sale.

Il-Kummissjoni ltaqgħet ma' numru ta’ kwistjonijiet li għandhom bżonn kjarifika. Pereżempju, il-Belġju ma pprovdiex lill-Kummissjoni bit-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-eżenzjonijiet li għamel fl-Artikolu 3, ħlief għas-servizzi finanzjarji. Il-Kummissjoni taf li ta’ l-anqas xi wħud minnhom ġew trasposti.

The Commission has encountered a number of issues needing clarification. For instance, Belgium has not provided the Commission with its transposition of the exemptions at Article 3, except for financial services. The Commission knows that at least some of these have been transposed.

Barra mill-eżenzjonijiet previsti fl-Artikolu 3, Spanja u l-Lussemburgu fil-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali tagħhom dwar bejgħ mill-bogħod jipprevedu eżenzjonijiet ġenerali mill-kuntratti konklużi permezz ta’ mezzi elettroniċi minkejja li d-Direttiva ta’ l-E-kummerċ[8] tispeċifika li hi mingħajr preġudizzju għad-Direttiva.

In addition to the exemptions provided for in Article 3, Spain and Luxembourg provide in their national distance selling legislation for general exemptions for contracts concluded by electronic means although the E-commerce Directive[8] specifies that it is without prejudice to the Directive.

Ir-relazzjoni bejn id-Direttiva tat- Timeshare [9] u d-Direttiva u t-tifsira tad-“ drittijiet tal-proprejtà immobbli ” tista’ tiġi ċċarata. Xi Stati Membri inklużi l-Ungerija, id-Danimarka, is-Slovenja u r-Renju Unit b’mod ċar eskludew it- timeshare bis-sħiħ jew parzjalment mill-ambitu tat-traspożizzjoni tagħhom skond l-eżenzjonijiet filwaqt li oħrajn m'għamlux dan.

The relationship between the Timeshare Directive[9] and the Directive and the meaning of “ immovable property rights ” may need to be clarified. Some Member States including Hungary, Denmark, Slovenia and the UK have expressly excluded timeshare fully or in part from the scope of their transposition under the exemptions whilst others have not.

Iż-żieda fil-popolarità ta’ rkanti online mill-adozzjoni tad-Direttiva wasslet għal żieda sinjifikanti fl-ilmenti tal-konsumaturi. Filwaqt li oriġinarjament websajts bħal eBay kienu mmirati lejn tranżazzjonijiet C2C ta’ oġġetti użati, aktar ma jmur aktar qegħdin jintużaw għal tranżazzjonijiet B2C ta' oġġetti ġodda. Il-Kummissjoni hija konxja mill-ġurisprudenza nazzjonali dwar jekk websajts bħal eBay jitqisux bħala djar ta’ l-irkantijiet u għalhekk jiġux eżentati mid-Direttiva. Il-kontrolli tat-traspożizzjoni kkonfermaw il-ħtieġa li jkun hemm ħarsa lejn it-tifsira ta’ “rkant” fil-liġijiet nazzjonali. Fi Franza, pereżempju, l-eżenzjoni ġiet limitata għal irkantijiet “ pubbliċi ”; fid-Danimarka l-eżenzjoni tapplika għall-irkantijiet “ organizzati b’tali mod li proporzjon kbir ta’ l-appaltaturi normalment ikun preżenti fl-irkant ”. Xi Stati Membri jidhru wkoll li ttrasponew l-eżenzjoni b’mod parzjali biss (pereżempju fl-Estonja, l-eżenzjoni ta’ l-irkantijiet hija limitata għan-non-applikazzjoni tad-dritt ta’ l-irtirar).

The increase in popularity of on-line auctions since the adoption of the Directive has led to a significant rise in consumer complaints. Whereas originally websites such as eBay were geared towards C2C transactions of second hand goods, they are increasingly being used for B2C transactions of new goods. The Commission is aware of national case law on whether websites such as eBay amount to auction houses and are therefore exempted from the Directive. The transposition checks have confirmed the need to look at the meaning of “ auction ” in national laws. In France, for instance, the exemption has been limited to “ public ” auctions; in Denmark the exemption applies to auctions organised in such a way that a large proportion of the bidders normally is present at the place of the auction. Some Member States also appear to have only partially transposed the exemption (e.g. in Estonia, the exemption for auctions is limited to the non application of the right of withdrawal).

Xi Stati Membri jidhru li estendew l-eżenzjonijiet parzjali fl-Artikolu 3(2) għad-dispożizzjonijiet kollha tad-Direttiva (pereżempju s-Slovenja, ir-Repubblika Ċeka, u l-Greċja). Il-liġijiet ta’ l-oħrajn mhumiex ċari f’dan ir-rigward (pereżempju l-Latvja; il-Finlandja, il-Litwanja; l-Olanda; is-Slovenja; id-Danimarka, il-Greċja, il-Polonja, l-Ungerija). Pereżempju, l-eżenzjoni tar- “regular roundsmen” fl-Artikolu 3(2) l-ewwel inċiż, seta' jikkawża problemi ta' interpretazzjoni. It-traduzzjoni tal-Kummissjoni tal-liġi Finlandiża tal-bejgħ mill-bogħod tirreferi għal “sistema regolari ta’ distribuzzjoni” li tista’ tkun usa’. It-traspożizzjoni Ungeriża tapplika għal merkanzija kkunsinjata kuljum lil konsumatur. Żviluppi ġodda tas-suq bħaż-żieda fix-xiri tal-merċa minn fuq l-internet tissuġġerixxi li din l-eżenzjoni għandha bżonn tiġi eżaminata mill-ġdid. L-użu ta’ klawżola minima saret ukoll fil-kuntest ta’ dawn l-eżenzjonijiet. Pereżempju, it-traspożizzjoni Pollakka ma tirreferix għax-xorb jew merkanzija għall-konsum ta' kuljum.

Certain Member States seem to have extended the partial exemptions at Article 3(2) to all the provisions of the Directive (e.g. Slovenia, Czech Republic, and Greece). The laws of others are unclear in this respect (e.g. Latvia; Finland, Lithuania; the Netherlands; Slovenia; Denmark, Greece, Poland, Hungary). For instance, the “ regular roundsmen ” exemption at Article 3(2) first indent may have caused interpretation problems. The Commission’s translation of the Finnish distance selling law refers to “ regular distribution system ” which may be broader. The Hungarian transposition applies to goods delivered daily to the consumer. New market developments such as the rise in internet grocery shopping suggest this exemption may need to be re-examined. Use of the minimum clause has also been made in the context of these exemptions. For instance, the Polish transposition does not refer to beverages or goods for everyday consumption.

L-eżenzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 3(2) it-tieni inċiż seta’ wkoll jikkawża problemi ta’ interpretazzjoni f’numru ta’ Stati Membri. Pereżempju, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja u l-Polonja estendew l-eżenzjoni għal kuntratti fejn id-data ta’ l-eżekuzzjoni hija ddeterminata wara l-konklużjoni tal-kuntratt. Il-Qorti Ewropea tal-Ġustizzja fis-sentenza tal-każ ta' l-Easycar[10], li fiha l-Qorti ddeċidiet li l-kiri tal-karozzi jammonta għal “ trasport ” fi ħdan it-tifsira tad-Direttiva, tindika li d-Direttiva ma tkoprix xi kuntratti ta' distanza li l-Kummissjoni u ta' l-anqas ċerti Stati Membri kellhom l-intenzjoni li tkopri[11]. Il-kunċett ta’ “ servizzi ta’ rikreazzjoni ” ukoll jista’ ma jkunx ċar. Dan jista’ jispjega l-fatt għaliex id-dritt tal-fornituri li ma japplikawx l-Artikolu 7(2) għas-servizzi ta’ rikreazzjoni ta’ barra f’ċirkustanzi speċifiċi ġiet trasposta biss minn Ċipru, l-Irlanda, il-Portugall u r-Renju Unit. F’dawk l-Istati Membri fejn din l-eżenzjoni ġiet applikata, l-impreċiżjoni ta’ “ċirkustanzi speċifiċi” tista’ toħloq inċertezza legali kemm għall-konsumaturi kif ukoll għan-negozju.

The exemption at Article 3(2) second indent may also have caused interpretation problems in a number of Member States. For example, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have extended the exemption to contracts where the date for execution is determined after conclusion of the contract. The European Court of Justice ruling in the Easycar[10] case, in which the Court ruled that car hire amounts to “ transport ” within the meaning of the Directive, indicates that the Directive does not cover some distance contracts which the Commission and at least certain Member States intended it to[11]. The concept of “ leisure services ” may also be unclear. This may explain why the right for suppliers not to apply Article 7(2) to outdoor leisure services in specific circumstances has only been transposed by Cyprus, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom. In those Member States where this exemption has been applied, the imprecision of “ specific circumstances ” may create legal uncertainty for both consumers and business.

5. ĦTIġIJIET TA’ TAGħRIF MINN QABEL – L-ARTIKOLU 4

5. PRIOR INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS – ARTICLE 4

Il-ħtiġijiet ta’ tagħrif minn qabel stipulati fl-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva jqajmu xi punti importanti ta’ interpretazzjoni.

The prior information requirements set out at Article 4 of the Directive raise some important interpretation questions.

Minkejja li numru sinjifikanti ta’ Stati Membri ttrasponew l-Artikolu 4(1) litteralment, ħafna minnhom użaw ukoll il-klawżola minima biex itejbu l-protezzjoni nazzjonali tal-konsumatur. Mill-kontrolli tat-traspożizzjoni ħareġ li f’xi Stati Membri xi ħtiġijiet ġew trasposti b’mod fqir . Dan ir-Rapport jiffoka fuq dawk il-ħtiġijiet li setgħu ġew trasposti ħażin minħabba problemi possibbli ta’ interpretazzjoni fid-Direttiva.

Although a significant number of Member States have transposed Article 4(1) literally, most of them have also used the minimum clause to enhance national consumer protection. The transposition checks have revealed that some requirements have been transposed poorly in some Member States. This Report focuses on those requirements which may have been badly transposed because of possible interpretation problems with the Directive.

Il-ħin u l-modalitajiet biex tingħata informazzjoni minn qabel jista’ jkun li jkollhom bżonn jiġu kkunsidrati mill-ġdid biex jiġi żgurat li l-konsumaturi jkunu infurmati b'mod adegwat meta jkunu qegħdin jiddeċiedu jekk hux se jidħlu fi tranżazzjoni. Il-kunċett ta’ “fi żmien tajjeb qabel il-konklużjoni ta’ kull kuntratt " fl-Artikolu 4(1) u “ b’mod ċar u li jinftiehem b’kull mod xieraq għal mezzi ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza użata ” fl-Artikolu 4(2) wassal għal interpretazzjonijiet diverġenti. Pereżempju, jidher li fil-Polonja trid tiġi pprovduta informazzjoni minn qabel, qabel ma jintuża mezz ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza .

The timing and modalities for giving prior information may need to be reconsidered to ensure consumers are adequately informed when deciding whether to enter into a transaction. The notions of “ in good time prior to the conclusion of any contract ” at Article 4(1) and “ in a clear and comprehensible manner in any way appropriate to the means of distance communication used ” at Article 4(2) have led to divergent interpretations. For example, it seems that in Poland prior information must be provided before a means of distance communication is used.

Informazzjoni ta’ qabel dwar il-prezz ta’ l-Artikolu 4(1)(c) huwa eżempju tajjeb ta' kif informazzjoni ta' qabel tista' tiddetermina jekk konsumatur ikunx se jidħol fi tranżazzjoni. Xi Stati Membri, inklużi l-Belġju u l-Iżvezja ma rreferewx b’mod espliċitu għat-taxxi fit-traspożizzjoni tagħhom. Il-Kummissjoni se tiċċara magħhom jekk hux prinċipju ta' liġi nazzjonali li t-taxxi jkunu dejjem inklużi fir-referenzi għall-prezz. Se jitqies ukoll jekk id-Direttiva għandhiex espliċitament tirreferi għal forom oħra ta' ħlasijiet li jrid jagħmel il-konsumatur pereżempju miżati ta' reġistrazzjoni/tqandil li jikkunsidraw l-Artikolu 7(4)(c) tal-UCP.

Prior information regarding price at Article 4(1)(c) is a good example of how prior information can determine whether a consumer will enter into a transaction. Some Member States, including Belgium and Sweden have not explicitly referred to taxes in their transposition. The Commission will clarify with them whether it is a principle of national law that taxes are always included in references to price. It will also consider whether the Directive should explicitly refer to other forms of charges made to the consumer e.g. booking/handling fees taking into account Article 7(4)(c) of the UCP.

Il-Kummissjoni hija konxja wkoll tal-problemi dwar trasparenza tal-prezz u l-operazzjoni tas- servizzi ta’ rata premium . Il-Kummissjoni se teżamina jekk id-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva rilevanti għas- servizzi ta’ rata premium għandhomx bżonn jiġu msaħħa pereżempju l-Artikolu 4(1)(g) tagħrif ta’ qabel dwar l-użu tal-mezzi ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza meta hija kkalkulata b'rata li mhix ir-rata bażika.

The Commission is also aware of problems concerning price transparency and the operation of premium rate services. The Commission will examine whether the provisions of the Directive relevant to premium rate services need to be reinforced e.g. Article 4(1)(g) prior information on the cost of using the means of distance communication when it is calculated at a rate other than the basic rate .

Maġġoranza ta’ l-Istati Membri għamlu użu mill-klawżola minima biex jagħmluha obbligatorja li jindikaw indirizz għall-ilmenti (pereżempju l-Awstrija, ir-Repubblika Ċeka, id-Danimarka, il-Finlandja, il-Lussemburgu, Malta, is-Slovakkja, is-Slovenja) u bosta għażlu li jindikaw jekk id-dritt ta' l-irtirar japplikax jew le (pereżempju l-Belġju, il-Ġermanja, l-Italja, l-Olanda, is-Slovenja, Spanja).

A majority of Member States have made use of the minimum clause to make it compulsory to indicate an address for complaints (e.g. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia) and many have chosen to indicate whether or not the right of withdrawal applies (e.g. Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain).

Il-klawżola minima ntużat ukoll f’diversi modi oħra. Pereżempju, fl-Italja, il-konsumatur jista' jitlob tagħrif minn qabel bit-Taljan fejn jintużaw mezzi ta' komunikazzjoni personali; L-Estonja u Spanja introduċew ħtiġijiet ta’ informazzjoni addizzjonali dwar merkanzija ta’ sostituzzjoni.

The minimum clause has also been used in a number of other ways. For example, in Italy the consumer can request the prior information in Italian where personal communication means are used; Estonia and Spain have introduced additional information requirements on replacement goods.

Numru sinjifikanti ta’ Stati Membri ma ttrasponewx il-ħtieġa ta' bona fide fl-Artikolu 4(2) u/jew ma jagħmlux referenza espliċita għal protezzjoni ta' ċerti tipi ta' konsumaturi, inklużi dawk minuri. Dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet se jitqiesu aktar matul ir-reviżjoni.

A significant number of Member States have not expressly transposed the good faith requirement at Article 4(2) and/or make no express reference to the protection of certain types of consumers, including minors. These provisions will be considered further in the course of the review.

6. KONFERMA TA' L-INFORMAZZJONI BIL-MIKTUB – ARTIKOLU 5

6. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF INFORMATION – ARTICLE 5

L-Artikolu 5 jipprevedi l-konferma bil-miktub ta’ ċerta informazzjoni, inkluża bosta mill-informazzjoni msemmija fl-Artikolu 4. Għal din ir-raġuni, l-Artikolu 5 irid jitqies flimkien ma’ l-Artikolu 4. Il-ħin tal-konferma bil-miktub irid jiġi diskuss ma’ numru ta’ Stati Membri (id-Danimarka, il-Ġermanja, l-Ungerija, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, il-Polonja).

Article 5 provides for confirmation in writing of certain information, including most of the information referred to in Article 4. For this reason, Article 5 must be considered alongside Article 4. The timing of written confirmation needs to be discussed with a number of Member States (Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland).

Mistoqsijiet dwar it-tagħrif li jridu jiġu kkonfermati bil-miktub iridu jsiru wkoll ma' xi Stati Membri peress li xi wħud jistgħu jkunu ħallew barra l-preskrizzjoni tal-konferma ta' kollha, jew parti mit-tagħrif meħtieġ (pereżempju fir-Repubblika Ċeka l-informazzjoni biss dwar l-identità u l-post tal-fornitur trid tiġi kkonfermata bil-miktub).

Enquiries concerning the information to be confirmed in writing must also be made with some Member States since some may have omitted to prescribe confirmation of all, or part of the required information (e.g. in the Czech Republic only information concerning the identity and location of the supplier must be confirmed in writing).

Barra minn hekk, il-klawżola minima wasslet għal diverġenzi fil-ħtiġijiet nazzjonali bħal ħtiġijiet ta’ lingwa (Ċipru, il-Greċja u Spanja) jew informazzjoni addizzjonali li trid tiġi pprovduta bil-miktub. Konferma ta’ informazzjoni dwar id-dritt ta’ rtirar b’mod partikolari ġġenerat regoli addizzjonali nazzjonali. Ċipru ppreskriva kampjun ta’ l-avviż ta’ l-irtirar li jrid ikun ikkomunikat lill-konsumatur flimkien mal-konferma bil-miktub. Fi Spanja, fornitur irid jipprovdi dokument ta’ rtirar/kanċellazzjoni li jkollu fih tagħrif preskritt flimkien mal-konferma bil-miktub. Il-Belġju mexa aktar billi ppreskriva klawżoli standard f’format fiss u l-konsegwenzi ta’ jekk dan ma jseħħx.

Moreover, the minimum clause has led to divergences in national requirements such as language requirements (Cyprus, Greece, Spain) or additional information to be provided in writing. Confirmation of information concerning the right of withdrawal in particular has generated additional national rules. Cyprus has prescribed a specimen notice of withdrawal which must be communicated to the consumer with the written confirmation. In Spain, a supplier must provide a withdrawal/cancellation document containing prescribed information with the written confirmation. Belgium has gone further by prescribing standard clauses in a given format and the consequences of failure to do so.

Xi Stati Membri u partijiet interessati qajmu l-bżonn li jikkjarifikaw il-kunċett ta’ “mezz sod” fl-Artikolu 5(1) fid-dawl tad-Direttiva 2002/65/KE u tekonoloġiji ġodda. L-Italja evitat problemi ta’ interpretazzjoni billi daħħlet regoli aktar iebsa i.e. il-konferma tista’ tingħata biss f’mezz sod ieħor jekk il-konsumatur jagħżel hekk. Il-Litwanja, ir-Repubblika Ċeka, is-Slovakkja u l-Polonja għażlu li ma jirreferux għal “mezz sod” .

Some Member States and stakeholders have raised the need to clarify the concept of “ durable medium ” at Article 5(1) in the light of Directive 2002/65/EC and new technologies. Italy has avoided interpretation problems by introducing stricter rules i.e. confirmation can only be given in another durable medium if the consumer so chooses. Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland have opted not to refer to “ durable medium” .

7. ID-DRITT TA' RTIRAR – ARTIKOLU 6

7. RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL – ARTICLE 6

Id-dritt ta’ l-irtirar li ddaħħal f’erba’ direttivi tal-konsumatur inklużi fl-Artikolu 6 tad-Direttiva, ta’ spiss jintuża bħala eżempju prim ta’ inkonsistenzi fl-acquis (pereżempju ż-żmien ta’ “tregwa” jvarja minn direttiva għal oħra)[12] u ta’ diverġenzi nazzjonali li jirriżultaw mill-użu tal-klawżola minima. Fil-qasam tal-bejgħ mill-bogħod, id-Direttiva tistabbilixxi perjodu minimu ta’ sebat ijiem ta’ xogħol għal konsumatur biex jirtira mill-kuntratt. L-Istati Membri ttransponew din il-ħtieġa f'diversi modi, l-aktar komuni hija dik ta’ sebat ijiem ta’ xogħol jew 14-il jum kalendarju (ara l-Anness IV).

The right of withdrawal introduced in four consumer directives including at Article 6 of the Directive, is often used as a prime example of inconsistencies in the acquis (e.g. the so-called “cooling-off” periods vary from one directive to another)[12] and of national divergences resulting from the use of the minimum clause. In the field of distance selling, the Directive sets a minimum period of seven working days for the consumer to withdraw from the contract. Member States have transposed this requirement in a multitude of ways, the most common being seven working days or 14 calendar days (see Annex IV).

It-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 6(1), li jippreskrivi kemm idum u minn meta jibda ż-żmien ta’ tregwa, ma qajjimx ħafna problemi. Iż-żmien ta’ tregwa Franċiż huwa kkalkulat f’ “ jours francs ”, li t-tifsira eżatta tiegħu trid tkun ikkjarifikata ma’ l-awtoritajiet Franċiżi. Il-punt li minnu jibda l-perjodu jqajjem aktar kwistjonijiet fundamentali. Pereżempju, “l-wasla” tal-merkanzija tista’ tkun suġġetta għal interpretazzjonijiet differenti fl-Istati Membri. Il-kwistjoni ta’ meta sseħħ il-wasla tqajmet ta' spiss (pereżempju jekk pakkett jasal meta l-konsumatur ikun asssenti, l-kunsinja sseħħ meta l-pustier iħalli n-nota li tinnotifika li sar attentat għall-kunsinja jew meta l-konsumatur jiġbor il-pakkett mill-uffiċċju tal-posta?) u se titqies fir-reviżjoni usa' tax-xogħol. Il-Kummissjoni wkoll tistaqsi jekk hemmx bżonn li tiġi riveduta s-sistema tal-kunsinja f’lottijiet matul ir-reviżjoni. Fil-Ġermanja, l-Estonja, il-Latvja u l-Iżvezja, il-liġijiet nazzjonali jispeċifikaw li l-perjodu jitqies mill-ewwel kunsinja tal-merkanzija. Il-Premessa 10 tidher li taċċetta din l-interpretazzjoni. Fl-opinjoni tal-Kummissjoni, fejn ordni tkopri prodotti differenti, il-konsumatur għandu jkun intitolat għal żmien ta’ tregwa wara l-kunsinja ta’ kull prodott ordnat. Dan m’għandux ikun il-każ meta ordni ta’ prodott waħdu jiġi kkunsinjat f’lottijiet. Pereżempju, ordni minn fuq l-internet ta’ diversi kotba (pereżempju ta' rumanz jew bijografija) li ma tistax tiġi kkunsinjata f'darba waħda minħabba nuqqas ta' disponibilità ta' wieħed mill-oġġetti m'għandhiex għax tiġi ttrattata bl-istess mod ta' kuntratt ta' kunsinja ta' sett ta' enċiklopediji li se jiġu kkunsinjati fuq perjodu ta' żmien.

The transposition of Article 6(1), which prescribes how long and from when the cooling off period runs, has not generated many problems. The French cooling off period is calculated in “ jours francs ”, the exact meaning of which must be clarified with the French authorities. The point from which the period starts to run raises more fundamental questions. For instance, “ receipt ” of goods may be subject to different interpretations in the Member States. The issue of when receipt takes place has been raised on occasion (e.g. if a parcel is delivered when the consumer is absent, does receipt occur when the postman leaves the card notifying attempted delivery or when the consumer picks up the parcel from the post office) and will be considered in the broader review work. The Commission also wonders whether the treatment of deliveries in batches needs to be re-examined in the course of the review. In Germany, Estonia, Latvia and Sweden, national laws specify that the period runs from the first delivery of part of the goods. Recital 10 appears to allow this interpretation. In the Commission’s opinion, where an order covers different products, the consumer should be entitled to a cooling off period after the delivery of each of the products ordered. This should not be the case where an order of a single product is delivered in batches. For example, an internet order of different books (e.g. a novel and a biography) which cannot be delivered in one batch because of unavailability of one of the items should not be treated in the same fashion as a contract for the delivery of a set of encyclopaedia over a period of time.

Il-konsegwenzi finanzjarji ta’ rtirar minn kuntratt u/jew il-waqt ta' ħlas lura (l-Artikolu 6(1)-(2)) iridu jiġu diskussi wkoll ma' numru ta' Stati Membri (pereżempju r-Repubblika Ċeka jidher li ma ttrasponitx l-Artikolu 6(2); Il-Ġermanja u l-Litwanja ma rreferewx għal-limitu taż-żmien għal ħlas lura). It-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-Ungerija mhix ċara, bħal ma hi dik tal-penali ta' l-Awstrija u l-Iżvezja. Fil-Finlandja, il-ħlas lura jrid jiġi eżegwit fi żmien 30 jum mir-ritorn. Peress li d-Direttiva ma tgħid xejn dwar meta jibda l-perjodu ta' 30 jum minn pereżempju l-avviż ta' rtirar, il-kunsinja tal-merkanzija mill-fornitur, mhix ċara jekk din l-interpretazzjoni hix aċċettabbli.

The financial consequences of withdrawing from a contract and/or the timing of reimbursement (Article 6(1)-(2)) must also be discussed with a number of Member States (e.g. the Czech Republic appears not to have transposed Article 6(2); Germany and Lithuania have not referred to the time limit for refund). Hungary’s transposition is unclear, as is Austria and Sweden’s concerning penalties. In Finland, the refund must be executed within 30 days of return. Since the Directive is silent as to when the 30 day period runs from e.g. notice of withdrawal, receipt of the goods by supplier, it is unclear whether this interpretation is acceptable.

L-Artikolu 6(3) jelenka l-eżenzjonijiet tad-dritt ta’ l-irtirar. Kollox ma’ kollox, dawn l-eżenzjonijiet jidhru li ġew trasposti b’mod adegwat, minkejja l-bżonn għal xi kjarifiki (pereżempju l-eżenzjoni fl-Artikolu 6(3) ir-raba’ inċiż jista’ jkun usa’ milli talloka d-direttiva fi Spanja, il-Lussemburgu, l-Italja u l-Polonja). Dawn l-eżenzjonijiet se jiġu eżaminati mill-qrib fil-kuntest tar-reviżjoni biex jiġi stabbilit jekk humiex aġġornati.

Article 6(3) lists exemptions to the right of withdrawal. Overall, these exemptions appear to have been transposed adequately, despite the need for some clarifications (e.g. the exemption at Article 6(3) fourth indent may be wider than the directive allows in Spain, Luxembourg, Italy and Poland). These exemptions will be closely examined in the context of the review to establish whether they are up-to-date.

Il-klawżola minima reġgħet ġiet użata waqt it-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 6. Xi wħud mill-eżenzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 6(3) ma ġewx trasposti indaqs madwar l-Ewropa (pereżempju fil-Belġju, l-eżenzjonijiet ma japplikawx fejn fornitur ma semmiex waqt li kien qiegħed jipprovdi tagħrif minn qabel li d-dritt ta' l-irtirar ma jeżistix; fid-Danimarka l-eżenzjoni għall-gazzetti tapplika biss f’ċerti ċirkustanzi). Diverġenzi naturali huma partikolarment ċari meta tingħata ħarsa lejn il-modalitajiet biex jiġi eżerċitat id-dritt ta’ l-irtirar: fil-Portugall il-merkanzija trid tiġi rritornata fi żmien 30 jum; il-forma ta’ l-avviż ta’ l-irtirar huwa preskritt f’xi Stati Membri; numru ta’ Stati Membri, inklużi r-Renju Unit, il-Finlandja u l-Portugall għamlu dispożizzjonijiet dwar d-dmir tal-kura waqt li l-merkanzija tkun fil-pussess tal-konsumatur. L-Istati Membri għamlu wkoll użu differenti mill-għażla regolatorja dwar il-prezz biex tirritorna l-merkanzija, inklużi pagamenti mill-konsumatur fil-każijiet kollha (pereżempju Ċipru), pagament mill-konsumatur f’ċerti ċirkostanzi (pereżempju r-Renju Unit, l-Irlanda, il-Belġju), pagament mill-konsumatur skond ir-rieda tal-fornitur (l-Estonja, Malta) u pagament mill-fornitur fejn dan jista’ jsir bil-posta normali (il-Finlandja). Fl-Estonja, hemm limitu ta' 10 ewro fuq l-ispejjeż li l-konsumatur għandu jagħmel meta jirritorna l-merkanzija.

The minimum clause has again been used when transposing Article 6. Some of the exemptions at Article 6(3) have not been transposed evenly across Europe (e.g. in Belgium, the exemptions do not apply where a supplier has failed to mention in the course of providing prior information that the right of withdrawal does not exist; in Denmark the exemption for newspapers only applies in given circumstances). National divergences are particularly clear when looking at the modalities for exercising the right of withdrawal: in Portugal the goods must be returned within 30 days; the form of the notice of withdrawal is prescribed in some Member States; a number of Member States, including the United Kingdom, Finland and Portugal have made provisions concerning a duty of care whilst the goods are in the consumer’s possession. Member States have also made different uses of the regulatory option concerning the cost of returning the goods, including payment by the consumer in all cases (e.g. Cyprus), payment by the consumer in certain circumstances (e.g. United Kingdom, Ireland, Belgium), payment by the consumer at the supplier’s discretion (Estonia, Malta) and payment by the supplier where this can be done by normal post (Finland). In Estonia, there is a 10 euro cap on the cost to be borne by the consumer when returning the goods.

Mhux l-Istati Membri kollha nnotifikaw it-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 6(4) li jkopri l-kanċellazzjoni tal-ftehim ta’ kreditu ma’ l-eżerċizzju tad-dritt ta’ l-irtirar (pereżempju s-Slovenja) u t-traspożizzjoni trid tiġi ċċarata ma’ oħrajn (pereżempju r-Repubblika Ċeka, Ċipru u l-Polonja).

Not all Member States have notified their transposition of Article 6(4) covering cancellation of credit agreements upon exercise of the right of withdrawal (e.g. Slovenia) and the transposition needs to be clarified with others (e.g. Czech Republic, Cyprus, Poland).

Fl-aħħar, ta’ min jinnota li l-miżura ta’ traspożizzjoni Belġjana tippermetti li jidħlu regoli speċifiċi għall-intrapriżi ż-żgħar u ta’ daqs medju. Minkejja li l-Kummissjoni m’għandhiex evidenza li din is-setgħa ntużat, kwalunkwa regoli bħal dawn jistgħu jkunu qegħdin imorru kontra d-Direttiva.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Belgian transposition measure allows for specific rules for small and medium sized enterprises to be introduced. Although the Commission has no evidence that this power has been used, any such rules may be in breach of the Directive.

8. L-EżEKUZZJONI - ARTIKOLU 7

8. PERFORMANCE – ARTICLE 7

Kollox ma’ kollox it-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 7 li jittratta l-eżekuzzjoni tal-kuntratt tagħti lok għal problemi assoċjati mal-ħin. Ta’ min jinnota li la r-Repubblika Ċeka u lanqas il-Ġermanja ma nnotifikaw it-traspożizzjoni tagħhom ta' l-Artikolu 7(1).

Overall, the transposition of Article 7 dealing with performance of the contract gives rise to problems associated with timing. It should be pointed out that neither the Czech Republic nor Germany have notified their transposition of Article 7(1).

Il-kumment prinċipali dwar l-Artikolu 7 għandu x’jaqsam ma' l-użu inkonsistenti ta’ terminoloġija fid-Direttiva u b’mod partikolari fl-Artikolu 7. Fil-fatt, l-Artikolu 7 jirreferi għal “ jiem ” filwaqt li l-Artikolu 6 jirreferi għal “ jiem ta’ xogħol ”. Barra minn hekk, il-punt li minnu jibdew il-perjodi ta’ kalkulazzjoni huwa speċifikat fl-Artikolu 7(1) (“ mill-għada ” ta’ l-ordni) u mhux speċifikat fl-Artikolu 7(2). Fl-abbozz attwali, l-Artikolu 7(2) ġie interpretat f'numru ta' modi. Xi Stati Membri interpretaw it-talba tal-limitu taż-żmien bħala li tapplika biss għal ħlas lura, oħrajn kemm għal ħlas lura kif ukoll għan-notifika tan-nuqqas ta' disponibilità. Dawn il-kwistjonijiet iridu jiġu indirizzati lill-Estonja, il-Greċja, l-Ungerija, il-Latvja, il-Litwanja, l-Olanda, l-Awstrija u r-Renju Unit. Mill-banda l-oħra xi Stati Membri bħall-Finlandja, Ċipru, is-Slovenja u s-Slovakkja ssikkaw it-talbiet kollha jew xi wħud li jikkonċernaw il-limitu taż-żmien. Oħrajn bħal Franza u d-Danimarka, imponew penali finanzjarji taħt forma ta’ imgħaxx.

The main comment to be made about Article 7 relates to the inconsistent use of terminology throughout the Directive and within Article 7 in particular. Indeed, Article 7 refers to “ days ” whereas Article 6 refers to “ working days ”. In addition, the point from which calculation periods run is specified in Article 7(1) (“ from the day following ” the order) and unspecified in Article 7(2). As presently drafted, Article 7(2) has been interpreted in a number of ways. Some Member States have interpreted the timing requirement as applying only to the refund, others to both the refund and the notification of non availability. Such issues need to be addressed with Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Austria and the United Kingdom. Conversely, some Member States such as Finland, Cyprus, Slovenia and Slovakia have tightened all or some of the time requirements. Others, like France and Denmark, impose a financial penalty in the form of interest.

It-traspożizzjoni ta’ l-Artikolu 7(3) huwa wkoll batut f’xi Stati Membri. Pereżempju, fl-Italja ma hemmx referenza għal “ mod ċar u li jinftiehem " li fih il-konsumatur irid jiġi infurmat dwar il-possibilità li l-fornitur jipprovdi merkanzija jew servizzi oħrajn. L-Estonja evitat din it-tip ta’ problema billi inkorporat din it-talba ta’ tagħrif fid-dispożizzjonijiet li jittrasponu l-Artikoli 4 u 5. Il-Belġju, il-Lussemburgu, id-Danimarka, il-Ġermanja u l-Awstrija jidher li eżerċitaw id-diskrezzjoni tagħhom billi ma ttrasponewx il-merkanzija ta' sostituzzjoni fl-Artikolu 7(3).

The transposition of Article 7(3) is also weak in some Member States. For example, in Italy there is no reference to the “ clear and comprehensible manner ” in which the consumer must be informed of the possibility for the supplier to provide replacement goods or services. Estonia has avoided this kind of problem by incorporating this information requirement to the provisions transposing Articles 4 and 5. Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany and Austria appear to have exercised their discretion by not transposing the replacement goods provisions at Article 7(3).

9. RESTRIZZJONIJIET FUQ L-UżU TA' ċERTI MEZZI TA' KOMUNIKAZZJONI MILL-BOGħOD – ARTIKOLU 10

9. RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN MEANS OF DISTANCE COMMUNICATION – ARTICLE 10

Bosta Stati Membri ma nnotifikawx id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali kollha jew parti minnhom li jittrasponu dan l-Artikolu. Dan jista’ jkun iġġustifikat bil-fatt li l-leġiżlazzjoni Komunitarja sussegwenti tkopri wkoll dawn ir-restrizzjonijiet. Fil-fatt, id-Direttiva dwar il-komunikazzjonijiet elettroniċi u ta' privatezza 2002/58/KE[13] titlob lill-Istati Membri biex jiżguraw li l-użu tas-sistemi ta' ċempil awtomatiku mingħajr intervenzjoni umana, magni tal-fax jew posta elettronika, tista’ titħalla biss għall-għan ta’ marketing dirett fir-rigward ta’ abbonati li taw il-kunsens minn qabel (sistema “opt-in”(tagħżel tidħolx?)). fejn jidħlu forom oħra ta’ komunikazzjoni bid-distanza, l-Istat Membru jrid jiddeċiedi jekk jadottax jew le s-sistema opt-in jew opt-out .

MANY MEMBER STATES HAVE FAILED TO NOTIFY ALL, OR PART OF, THEIR NATIONAL PROVISIONS TRANSPOSING THIS ARTICLE. THIS MAY BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENT COMMUNITY LEGISLATION ALSO COVERS THESE RESTRICTIONS. INDEED, THE DIRECTIVE ON PRIVACY AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS 2002/58/EC[13] requires Member States to ensure that the use of automated calling systems without human intervention, facsimile machines or electronic mail be only allowed for the purposes of direct marketing in respect of subscribers who have given their prior consent (“opt-in” system). As far as other forms of distance communication are concerned, it remains up to Member States to decide whether to adopt an opt-in or opt-out system.

10. KONKLUżJONIJIET

10. CONCLUSIONS

It-traspożizzjoni tad-Direttiva fl-Istati Membri tqajjem numru ta’ problemi kkonfermati jew apparenti. Bosta minn dawn ġejjin mill-kliem imniżżel fid-Direttiva. Minkejja li d-Direttiva tidher li hija flessibbli biżżejjed biex tkopri teknoloġiji u forom ġodda ta' marketing, l-applikazzjoni prattika tad-Direttiva taf ma tibqax tajba maż-żmien. L-eżekuzzjoni xierqa tad-drittijiet u l-obbligi stabbiliti fid-Direttiva mhix dejjem prattika. Barra minn hekk, il-kontrolli ta' traspożizzjoni żvelaw diverġenzi sinjifikanti bejn liġijiet nazzjonali u r-riżultat ta' l-użu tal-klawżola minima. Mhux ċar f’dan l-istadju kemm dawn id-diverġenzi jaffettwaw il-ħidma propja tas-Suq Intern u tal-kunfidenza tal-konsumatur. Il-Kummissjoni trid tistabbilixxi dan sabiex tiddeċiedi jekk id-Direttiva għandhiex bżonn tiġi riveduta.

The transposition of the Directive in the Member States raises a number of confirmed or apparent problems. Many of these may emanate from the wording of the Directive. Although, the Directive appears to be flexible enough to cover new technologies and forms of marketing, the practical application of the Directive may not weather the test of time. The proper execution of the rights and obligations set out in the Directive is not always practicable. In addition, the transposition checks have revealed significant divergences between national laws as a result of the use of the minimum clause. It is unclear at this stage to what extent these divergences affect the proper functioning of the Internal Market and consumer confidence. The Commission must establish this in order to decide whether the Directive needs to be revised.

Dawn il-kwistjonijiet se jitqiesu aktar matul ir-reviżjoni ta’ l-acquis. Billi tagħmel dan il-Kummissjoni trid tqis mhux biss il-leġiżlazzjoni dwar il-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur, iżda wkoll f’oqsma oħrajn ta’ leġiżlazzjoni komunitarja inklużi leġiżlazzjoni dwar l-e-kummerċ u l-privatezza.

These issues will all be examined further in the course of the review of the acquis. In doing so, the Commission will need to take into account not only consumer protection legislation, but also other fields of community legislation including e-commerce and privacy legislation.

ANNESS I

ANNEX I

TABELLA TA’ MIżURI NAZZJONALI TA’ IMPLIMENTAZZJONI TA’ L-ISTATI MEMBRI

TABLE OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES OF MEMBER STATES

Stat Membru | Miżuri ta’ implimentazzjoni li taf bihom il-Kummissjoni mill-1 ta’ April 2006 | Id-Data meta l-liġi daħlet fis-seħħ |

Member State | Implementing measures known to the Commission on 1 April 2006 | Date law came into force |

Österreich | Bundesgesetz, mit dem Bestimmungen über den Vertragsabschluß in Fernabsatz in das Konsumentenschutzgesetz eingefügt und das Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb 1984 sowie das Produkthaftungsgesetz geändert werden (Fernabsatz-Gesetz) BGBI. Nr. 185/1999 | l-1 ta’ Ġunju 2000 |

Belgique | Loi du 14 juillet 1991 sur les pratiques du commerce et sur l’information et la protection du consommateur, modifiée par la loi du 25 mai 1999 transposant la directive européenne concernant la protection des consommateurs en matière de contrats à distance. | l-1 ta’ Novembru 1999? |

Κypros | Ο περί της Σύναψης Καταναλωτικών Συμβάσεων εξ Αποστάσεως Νόμος του 2000 (Ν.14(Ι)/2000) | it-28 ta’ Marzu 2000 |

Κypros | Ο περί της Σύναψης Καταναλωτικών Συμβάσεων εξ Αποστάσεως Νόμος του 2000 (Ν.14(Ι)/2000) | 28 March 2000 |

Česká republika | Zákon č. 367/2000 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 40/1964 Sb., občanský zákoník, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a některé další zákony | l-1 ta’ Jannar 2001 |

Česká republika | Zákon č. 367/2000 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 40/1964 Sb., občanský zákoník, ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a některé další zákony | 1 January 2001 |

Danmark | Bekendtgørelse af lov om visse forbrugeraftaler (Dørsalg mv., fjernsalg og løbende tjenesteydelser) (Forbrugeraftaleloven), som ændret ved lov nr 262 af 6. maj 1993, lov nr. 1098 af 21.december og lov nr. 442 af 31. maj 2000. | l-1 ta’ Ġunju 2000 u l-1 ta’ Lulju 2000 |

Eesti | Võlaõigusseadus RT I 2004, 37, 255 | l-1 ta’ Mejju 2004 |

Eesti | Võlaõigusseadus RT I 2004, 37, 255 | 1 May 2004 |

Suomi | Laki kuluttajansuojalain muuttamisesta, 15.12.2000 (Suomen säädöskokoelma 2000 N° 1072) Laki sopimattomasta menettelystä elinkeinotoiminnassa annetun lain 2 §:n muuttamisesta, 15.12.2000 (Suomen säädöskokoelma 2000 N° 1073). | l-1 ta’ Marzu 2001 |

France | Articles 5 à 15 de l’ordonnance n° 2001-741 du 23 août 2001 et Article 36 de la Loi n°2001-1062 du 15 novembre 2001 relative à la sécurité quotidienne | il-25 ta’ Awwissu 2001 |

France | Articles 5 à 15 de l’ordonnance n° 2001-741 du 23 août 2001 et Article 36 de la Loi n°2001-1062 du 15 novembre 2001 relative à la sécurité quotidienne | 25 August 2001 |

Deutschland | Gesetz über Fernabsatzverträge und andere Fragen des Verbraucherrechts sowie zur Umstellung von Vorschriften auf Euro vom 27. Juni 2000 | it-30 ta’ Ġunju 2000 |

Deutschland | Gesetz über Fernabsatzverträge und andere Fragen des Verbraucherrechts sowie zur Umstellung von Vorschriften auf Euro vom 27. Juni 2000 | 30 June 2000 |

Ellás | Κοινή Υπουργική Απόφαση Ζ1-496/2000 περί πωλήσεων από απόσταση και συγκριτικής διαφήμισης, τροποποιητική του Ν.2251/94 για την Προστασία των Καταναλωτών | it-18 ta’ Diċembru 2000 |

Ellás | Κοινή Υπουργική Απόφαση Ζ1-496/2000 περί πωλήσεων από απόσταση και συγκριτικής διαφήμισης, τροποποιητική του Ν.2251/94 για την Προστασία των Καταναλωτών | 18 December 2000 |

Magyarország | 1997. évi CLV. törvény a fogyasztóvédelemről 17/1999. (II. 5.) Korm. rendelet a távollévők között kötött szerződésekről | L-ebda Informazzjoni |

Magyarország | 1997. évi CLV. törvény a fogyasztóvédelemről 17/1999. (II. 5.) Korm. rendelet a távollévők között kötött szerződésekről | No information |

Ireland | European Communities (Protection of Consumers in Respect of Contracts made by Means of Distance Communication) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 207 of 2001) | il-15 ta’ Mejju 2001 |

Ireland | European Communities (Protection of Consumers in Respect of Contracts made by Means of Distance Communication) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 207 of 2001) | 15 May 2001 |

Italia | Decreto Legislativo 6 settembre 2005, n.206, “Codice del consumo, a norma dell’ articolo 7 della legge 29 luglio 2003, n.229”. | it-23 ta’ Ottubru 2005 (oriġinarjament traspost f’digriet li daħal fis-seħħ f’Ottubru 1999) |

Italia | Decreto Legislativo 6 settembre 2005, n.206, “Codice del consumo, a norma dell’ articolo 7 della legge 29 luglio 2003, n.229”. | 23 October 2005 (originally transposed in a decree taking effect in October 1999) |

Latvija | Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums, Grozījumi: 22.11.2001. likums Miniostru kabineta 2002.gada.28 maija noteikumi Nr 207 “Noteikumi par distances lîgumi” | L-ebda Informazzjoni |

Latvija | Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības likums, Grozījumi: 22.11.2001. likums Miniostru kabineta 2002.gada.28 maija noteikumi Nr 207 “Noteikumi par distances lîgumi” | No information |

Lietuva | Lietuvos Respublikos vartotojų teisių gynimo įstatymo pakeitimo įstatymas Nr. VIII – 1946 (nauja redakcija) Lietuvos Respublikos ūkio ministro 2001 m. rugpjūčio 17 d. įsakymas Nr.258 „Dėl daiktų pardavimo ir paslaugų teikimo, kai sutartys sudaromos naudojant ryšio priemones, taisyklių patvirtinimo | L-ebda Informazzjoni |

Luxembourg | Loi du 16 avril 2003 concernant la protection des consommateurs en matière de contrats à distance et abrogeant l’article 7 de la loi modifiée du 25 août 1983 relative à la protection juridique du consommateur | il-11 ta’ Mejju 2003. |

Malta | Regolamenti dwar il-Bejgħ mill-Bogħod (AL186/01) Att ta’ l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur (Kapitolu 378) | l-1 ta’ Jannar 2002 |

Malta | Distance Selling Regulations (LN186/01) Consumer Affairs Act (Chapter 378) | 1 January 2002 |

Nederland | Wet van 21.12.2000 tot aanpassing van Boek 7 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek aan richtlijn nr. 97/7/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van de Europese Unie van 20 mei 1997 betreffende de bescherming van de consument bij op afstand gesloten overeenkomsten (PbEG L 144) (21.12.2000) | l-1 ta’ Frar 2001 |

Polska | Ustawa z dnia 2 marca 2000r. o ochronie niektórych praw konsumentów oraz o odpowiedzialności za szkodę wyrzadzoną przez produkt niebezpieczny | it-30 ta’ Ġunju 2000 |

Polska | Ustawa z dnia 2 marca 2000r. o ochronie niektórych praw konsumentów oraz o odpowiedzialności za szkodę wyrzadzoną przez produkt niebezpieczny | 30 June 2000 |

Portugal | Decreto-Lei nº 143/2001 de 26 de Abril 2000 | il-25 ta’ Mejju 2001 |

Portugal | Decreto-Lei nº 143/2001 de 26 de Abril 2000 | 25 May 2001 |

Slovenska republika | Zákon č. 108/2000 Z. z. o ochrane spotrebiteľa pri podomovom predaji a zásielkovom predaji | l-1 ta’ April 2000 |

Slovenska republika | Zákon č. 108/2000 Z. z. o ochrane spotrebiteľa pri podomovom predaji a zásielkovom predaji | 1 April 2000 |

Slovenija | Zakon o varstvu potrošnikov - uradno prečiščeno besedilo (N 700-01/190-6/24 (ZVPot-UPB1)) | 2003 |

España | Ley 47/2002, de 19 de diciembre, de reforma de la Ley 7/1996, de 15 de enero, de Ordenación del Comercio Minorista, para la transposición al ordenamiento jurídico español de la Directiva 97/7/CE, en materia de contratos a distancia, y para la adaptación de la Ley a diversas Directivas comunitarias | l-1 ta’ Jannar 2003 |

Sverige | Lag (2000:274) om konsumentskydd vid distansavtal och hemforsaljningsavtal | l-1 ta’ Ġunju 2000 |

Sverige | Lag (2000:274) om konsumentskydd vid distansavtal och hemforsaljningsavtal | 1 June 2000 |

United Kingdom | The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No.2334) as amended by the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 689) | il-31 ta’ Ottubru 2000 |

United Kingdom | The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 2334) as amended by The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No. 689) | 31 October 2000 |

ANNESS II

ANNEX II

MISTOQSIJIET GħALL-KONSULTAZZJONI PUBBLIKA

QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Il-Kummissjoni tixtieq tiġbor l-opinjoni ta’ l-Istati Membri dwar l-applikazzjoni tad-Direttiva u kemm din hija adegwata għal kundizzjonijiet u/jew prodotti għas-suq il-ġdid. Dwar dan, inġabret lista ta’ mistoqsijiet għal konsultazzjoni pubblika. Dawn għandhom jiġu eżaminati ma’ ġemb ir-Rapport li miegħu jiġi mehmuż l-istħarriġ sabiex ikun hemm stampa ċara tal-kwistjonijiet li l-Kummissjoni identifikat sa issa fil-qasam tal-bejgħ mill-bogħod. Sottomissjonijiet dwar problemi li ma tqajmux fir-Rapport jew f’dan l-Istħarriġ huma wkoll milqugħa.

The Commission wishes to collect the Member States and stakeholders’ views on the application of the Directive and its suitability for new market conditions and/or products. To this end, a list of questions for public consultation has been compiled. These should be examined alongside the Report to which the Questionnaire is annexed in order to get a full picture of the issues the Commission has identified so far in the field of distance selling. Submissions on problems which have not been raised in the Report or this Questionnaire are also welcome.

Wara li jkun spiċċa l-perjodu ta’ konsultazzjoni, il-Kummissjoni se tippubblika taqsira tar-risposti fuq il-websajt tagħha. Reazzjonijiet u kummenti tal-partijiet interessati se jsiru pubbliċi fuq is-sit ta’ l-Internet tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea, sakemm min jibgħathom ma jirrikjedix espliċitament mod ieħor. Dawn ir-reazzjonijiet se jiddaħħlu fil-bażi ta’ evidenza li bħalissa qiegħda tinġabar sabiex jitwettaq ix-xogħol aktar wiesa’ dwar ir-reviżjoni tal-qafas regolatorju tal-konsumatur.

After the consultation period has ended, the Commission will publish a summary of responses on its website. Responses and comments of interested parties will also be made public on the internet site of the European Commission, unless the sender explicitly requests otherwise. These responses will be fed into the evidence base which is currently being gathered in order to pursue the broader work on the review of the consumer regulatory framework.

Il-Kummissjoni se taċċessa wkoll il-bżonn biex torganizza seduta pubblika biex tkompli d-dibattitu dwar kwistjonijiet imqajma fir-Rapport u f’dan l-Istħarriġ. Billi tagħmel dan il-Kummissjoni se tqis ukoll ir-riżultat tal-konsultazzjoni pubblika li se jiġi mniedi mill-Green Paper dwar reviżjoni usa’ tal-qafas regolatorju tal-konsumatur. Din il-Green Paper se tanalizza l-istadju li wasal fih ix-xogħol fuq ir-reviżjoni ta’ l-acquis. Fuq il-bażi ta' l-evidenza miġbura sa issa, se tistabbilixxi wkoll għażliet possibbli għal riforma ta' qafas regolatorju tal-konsumatur u titlob l-opinjoni ta' l-Istati Membri u l-partijiet interessati dwar l-aħjar mod kif timxi 'l quddiem. L-adozzjoni ta’ din il-Green Paper hija ppjanata għall-ħarifa ta’ l-2006.

The Commission will also assess the need for organising a public hearing to further the debate on the issues raised in the Report and this Questionnaire. In doing so, the Commission will also take into account the outcome of the public consultation which will be launched by the Green Paper on the broader review of the consumer regulatory framework. This Green Paper will take stock of the state of play of the work of the review of the acquis. On the basis of the evidence gathered so far, it will also set out possible options for reform of the consumer regulatory framework and seek the views of Member States and stakeholders on the best way forward. Adoption of this Green Paper is planned for the autumn 2006.

Il-partijiet kollha interessati li jixtiequ jirrispondu għal dan l-Istħarriġ għandhom jissottomettu r-risposti lill-Kummissjoni Ewropea sa 21.11.2006. Jekk jogħġbok irrispondi bl-aktar mod sħiħ possibbli u ibgħat il-kummenti tiegħek (immarkati “L-ewwel konsultazzjoni dwar id-Direttiva ta’ Bejgħ mill-Bogħod”) jew lil:

All interested parties who wish to respond to this Questionnaire should submit replies to the European Commission by 21.11.2006. Please answer as fully as possible and send your comments (marked “First consultation on the Distance Selling Directive”) to either:

Il-Kummissjoni Ewropea

European Commission

Id-Diretttorat Ġenerali għas-Saħħa u l-Ħarsien tal-Konsumatur

Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection

Rue de la Loi 200

B-1049 Brussell

B-1049 Brussels

Il-Belġju

Belgium

jew permezz tal-posta elettronika lil SANCO-B2@ec.europa.eu.

or by e-mail to SANCO-B2@ec.europa.eu.

Artikolu 2 - Definizzjonijiet

Article 2 – Definitions

1. Id-definizzjonijiet attwali ta’ “konsumatur” u “fornitur” huma adegwati għall-għanijiet tal-qasam regolat mid-Direttiva 97/7/KE? (din il-kwistjoni se titqies fix-xogħol rivedut ta' l-acquis tal-konsumatur) 2. Id-definizzjoni attwali ta’ “kuntratt ta’ distanza” hija ċara biżżejjed? B’mod partikolari, it-terminu “bejgħ organizzat mill-bogħod jew skema ta’ dispożizzjoni ta’ servizz” huwa ċar jew il-ħarsien tal-konsumatur għandu jiġi estiż għall-kuntratti ta’ distanza kollha irrelevanti minn jekk il-fornitur normalment jagħmilx kummerċ mill-bogħod? 3. Id-definizzjoni attwali ta’ “mezz ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza” hija ċara biżżejjed? 4. Hemm valur miżjud li “operatur ta’ mezz ta’ komunikazzjoni ta’ distanza” tiġi ddefinita? 5. Id-definizzjonijiet huma b’xi mod mhux ċari f’dak li għandu x’jaqsam ma’ kwalunkwa kunċett ieħor, jew hemm kunċetti relatati mal-bejgħ mill-bogħod li għandhom bżonn ta’ definizzjoni? |

1. Are the current definitions of “consumer” and “supplier” adequate for the purposes of the field regulated by Directive 97/7/EC? (this issue will also be considered in the broader consumer acquis review work) 2. Is the current definition of a “distance contract” clear enough? In particular, is the term “organised distance sales or service provision scheme” clear or should consumer protection be extended to all distance contracts regardless of whether the supplier usually trades at a distance? 3. Is the current definition of “means of distance communication” clear enough? 4. Is there any added value to “operator of means of distance communication” being defined? 5. Are definitions unclear in relation to any other concept, or are there other concepts relating to distance selling in need of definition? |

Artikolu 3 - Eżenzjonijiet

Article 3 – Exemptions

6. L-eżenzjonijiet attwali għandhom bżonn jiġu riveduti, imwessa’ jew revokati fid-dawl ta’ l-iżviluppi ġodda tas-suq (pereżempju l-iddawnlowdjar tal-mużika jew servizzi oħrajn) u/jew teknoloġiji (pereżempju emerġenza ta' m-kummerċ) jew problemi ta' interpretazzjoni (pereżempju s-sentenza tal-Qorti Ewropea tal-Ġustizzja dwar il-każ ta’ l-Easycar li fih ġie deċiż li l-kiri tal-karozzi tammonta għal "servizz ta' trasport" u b'konsegwenza ta' dan huwa eskluż mill-ambitu tad-Direttiva; użu ta’ terminoloġija aktar wiesgħa bħal “servizzi ta’ rikreazzjoni”)? 7. Bid-dħul ta’ definizzjoni tas-servizzi finanzjarji mill-Artikolu 18 tad-Direttiva 2002/65 fid-Direttiva) issolvew il-problemi ta’ traspożizzjoni li Stati Membri seta’ kellhom oriġinarjament meta ttrasponew id-Direttiva? (din il-kwistjoni se titqies f’aktar dettall matul ir-reviżjoni tad-Direttiva 2002/65). 8. L-eżenzjoni li tkopri l-bini u l-bejgħ tal-proprjetà immobbli jew id-drittijiet relatati mal-proprjetà immobbli toħloq problemi ta’ interpretazzjoni pereżempju dwar l-interazzjoni tad-Direttiva flimkien mad-Direttiva tat-Timeshare? 9. L-irkantijiet jew tipi speċifiċi ta’ rkantijiet għandhom ikunu koperti bid-Direttiva? |

6. Do the current exemptions need to be revised, expanded or repealed in the light of new market developments (e.g. downloading of music or other services) and/or technologies (e.g. emergence of m-commerce) or interpretation problems (e.g. European Court of Justice ruling on the Easycar case in which it was decided that car hire amounts to a “transport service” and is as a consequence excluded from the scope of the Directive; use of broad terminology such as “leisure services”)? 7. Has the insertion of a definition of financial services by Article 18 of Directive 2002/65 in the Directive) solved any transposition problems Member States may have originally encountered when transposing the Directive? (this issue will be considered in more detail in the course of the review of Directive 2002/65) 8. Does the exemption covering the construction and sale of immovable property or rights related to immovable property cause any interpretation problem e.g. interaction of this Directive with the Timeshare Directive? 9. Should auctions or specific types of auctions be covered by the Directive? |

Artikolu 4 - Tagħrif minn qabel

Article 4 – Prior information

10. L-Artikolu 4 jista' jittejjeb (pereżempju dispożizzjonijiet aktar ċari dwar il-ħin u/jew il-format tat-tagħrif minn qabel; introduzzjoni tal-ħtiġijiet addizzjonali jew revoka ta’ ċerti ħtiġijiet)? 11. Il-gruppi kollha tal-konsumaturi (pereżempju l-minuri) huma mħarsa biżżejjed mid-Direttiva? Jekk le, kif tista tittejjeb din il-protezzjoni? |

10. Can Article 4 be improved (e.g. clearer provisions concerning timing and/or format of the prior information; introduction of additional requirements or repeal of certain requirements)? 11. Are all groups of consumers (e.g. minors) sufficiently protected by the Directive? If not, how can their protection be improved? |

Artikolu 5 – Konferma bil-Miktub

Article 5 – Written confirmation

12. L-Artikolu 5 jista’ jittejjeb? pereżempju permezz ta’ l-introduzzjoni ta’ definizzjoni ta’ “mezz sod” kif iddefinit fid-Direttiva 2002/65/KE; introduzzjoni ta’ aktar informazzjoni għandha tkun ikkonfermata bil-miktub jew bit-tħassir ta’ xi informazzjoni) 13. Il-fużjoni tal-ħtiġijiet ta’ l-informazzjoni fl-Artikolu 4(1) u 5(1) jissemplifika dawn ir-regoli kemm għall-konsumatur u kemm għall-fornitur? |

12. Can Article 5 be improved e.g. introduction of a definition of “durable medium” as defined in Directive 2002/65/EC; introduction of further information to be confirmed in writing or deletion of some information) 13. Would the merger of the information requirements at Article 4(1) and 5(1) simplify these rules for both consumers and suppliers? |

Artikolu 6 – Id-dritt ta' rtirar

Article 6 – Right of withdrawal

14. Taħseb li t-tul taż-żmien ta’ tregwa għall-bejgħ mill-bogħod għandu jiġi armonizzat fl-Istati Membri kollha u jekk iva, kemm għandu jkun twil dan iż-żmien? il-kwistjoni ta’ jekk it-tul taż-żmien ta’ tregwa f'direttivi differenti tal-konsumatur għandhomx ikunu armonizzati fl-acquis kollu se jitqies fix-xogħol usa' ta' l-acquis tal-konsumatur. Madankollu, forsi tixtieq tagħmel xi kumment hawnhekk)? 15. Ir-regoli li jikkonċernaw l-eżerċizzju tad-dritt ta’ l-irtirar u l-konsegwenzi tiegħu hemm bżonn li jiġu ċċarati? 16. L-eżenzjonijiet attwali għad-dritt ta’ rtirar hemm bżonn li jiġu riveduti, imwessa’ jew revokati fid-dawl ta’ l-iżviluppi u/jew teknoloġiji ġodda tas-suq? 17. Id-dispożizzjonijiet li jikkonċernaw il-prezz tar-ritorn jista’ jkun armonizzat fil-qasam tal-bejgħ mill-bogħod u jekk iva, min għandu jħallas l-ispejjeż tar-ritorn? (din il-kwistjoni se titqies fix-xogħol rivedut ta' l-acquis tal-konsumatur) |

14. Do you think the length of the distance selling cooling off period should be harmonised across the Member States and if, so how long should this period be? (the issue of whether the length of the cooling off periods in the different consumer directives should be harmonised across the acquis will be considered in the broader consumer acquis review work. However, you may wish to comment here)? 15. Do the rules concerning the exercise of the right of withdrawal and its consequences need to be clarified? 16. Do the current exemptions to the right of withdrawal need to be revised, expanded or repealed in the light of new market developments and/or technologies? 17. Should the provisions concerning the cost of return be harmonised in the field of distance selling and if so, who should pay the cost of return? (this issue will also be considered in the broader consumer acquis review work) |

Artikolu 7 - L-eżekuzzjoni

Article 7 - Performance

18. Id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-Artikolu 7 jiżguraw eżekuzzjoni xierqa tal-kuntratti ta’ distanza pereżempju r-regoli dwar il-ħin u l-forma huma ċari? 19. Id-dispożizzjoni mhux obbligatorja dwar il-merkanzija mibdula fl-Artikolu 7(3) għandha ssir obbligatorja sabiex tgħolli l-livell tal-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur indaqs fis-Suq Intern kollu? |

18. Do the provisions of Article 7 ensure proper performance of distance contracts e.g. are the rules concerning timing and form clear? 19. Should the optional provision concerning substitute goods at Article 7(3) be made compulsory to raise the level of consumer protection evenly across the Internal Market? |

Artikolu 10

Article 10

20. L-Artikolu 10 għandu jkun irrevokat b’mod ċar sabiex tiġi ċċarata r-relazzjoni bejn l-Artikolu 10 u d-Direttiva 2002/58/KE dwar il-privatezza u l-komunikazzjoni elettronika |

20. Should Article 10 be expressly repealed to clarify the relationship between Article 10 and the Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications? |

Mistoqsijiet ġenerali

General questions

21. Kif affettwa l-kummerċ transkonfinali u l-kompetizzjoni, l-użu tal-klawżola minima i.e. l-possibilità għal Stati Membri li jżommu jew jintroduċu dispożizzjonijiet li joffru standard ogħla ta’ protezzjoni tal-konsumatur, pereżempju kienet ta’ xkiel għall-kummerċ transkonfinali jew qajjem ostakli għall-eżerċizzju tad-dritt li wieħed jistabbilixxi ruħu? Jekk iva, jekk jogħġbok agħti eżempji. 22. Iltqajt ma' xi problemi oħrajn bir-regolament tal-bejgħ mill-bogħod kif inhu attwalment? 23. Tħoss li hemm xi aspetti oħrajn ta’ bejgħ mill-bogħod li għandhom bżonn regolamentazzjoni? |

21. How has the use of the minimal clause i.e. the possibility for Member States to retain or introduce provisions offering a higher standard of consumer protection affected cross border trade and competition e.g. has it constituted a hindrance to cross-border trade or raised obstacles to the exercise of the right of establishment? If so, please give examples. 22. Have you encountered any other problem with the regulation of distance selling as it currently stands? 23. Do you feel that there are other aspects of distance selling that require regulation? |

ANNESS III

ANNEX III

DIRETTIVI TAL-KONSUMATUR GħAR-REVIżJONI

CONSUMER DIRECTIVES UNDER REVIEW

Direttiva tal-Kunsill 85/577/KEE ta' l-20 ta' Diċembru 1985 biex tħares lill-konsumatur rigward kuntratti nnegozjati barra mill-lok tan-negozju ĠU L 372, 31.12.1985, p.31.

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

Direttiva tal-Kunsill 90/314/KEE tat-13 ta' Ġunju 1990 dwar pakketti ta' vjaġġar, pakketti ta' vakanzi u pakketti ta' ġiti ĠU l 158, 23.6.1990, p.59.

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

Direttiva tal-Kunsill 93/13/KEE tal-5 ta' April 1993 dwar termini inġusti fil-kuntratti tal-konsumaturi ĠU L 95, 21.4 193, p.29.

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

Direttiva 94/47/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-26 ta' Ottubru 1994 dwar il-protezzjoni tax-xerrejja f'rispett ta' ċerti aspetti ta' kuntratti relatati max-xiri tad-dritt li jintużaw proprjetajiet immobbli fuq bażi ta' timeshare ĠU L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.

Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of a right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis, OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.

Direttiva 97/7/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill ta' l-20 ta' Mejju 1997 dwar il-protezzjoni tal-konsumaturi f'rispett għal kuntratti mill-bogħod ĠU L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19.

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

Id-Direttiva 98/6/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-16 ta' Frar 1998 dwar protezzjoni tal-konsumatur fl-indikazzjoni ta' prezzijiet ta' prodotti offruti lill-konsumaturi ĠU L 80, 18.3.1998, p.27.

Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, OJ L 80, 18.3.1998, p. 27.

Id-Direttiva 98/27/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tad-19 ta' Mejju 1998 dwar inġunzjonijiet fl-interess tal-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur ĠU L 166, 11.6.1998, p.51.

Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.

Id-Direttiva 1999/44/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-25 ta' Mejju 1999 dwar ċerti aspetti tal-bejgħ ta' oġġetti tal-konsum u garanziji asoċjati ĠU L 171, 7.7.1999, p.12.

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

ANNESS IV

ANNEX IV

TUL TAżMIEN TA’ TREGWA FL-ISTATI MEMBRI

LENGTH OF THE COOLING OFF PERIOD IN THE MEMBER STATES

Stat Membru | Tul taż-żmien ta’ tregwa |

Member State | Length of cooling off period |

L-Awstrija | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol (espressivament jeskludu is-Sibt) |

Austria | 7 working days (expressly excludes Saturday) |

Il-Belġju | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Belgium | 7 working days |

Ċipru | 14-il jum |

Cyprus | 14 days |

Ir-Repubblika Ċeka | 14-il jum |

Czech Republic | 14 days |

Id-Danimarka | 14-il jum |

Denmark | 14 days |

L-Estonja | 14-il jum |

Estonia | 14 days |

Il-Finlandja | 14-il jum |

Finland | 14 days |

Franza | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol? (it-tifsira ta’ “jours francs” hemm bżonn li tiġi ċċarata) |

France | 7 working days? (meaning of “jours francs” in need of clarification) |

Il-Ġermanja | Ġimagħtejn |

Germany | 2 weeks |

Il-Greċja | 10t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Greece | 10 working days |

L-Ungerija | 8t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Hungary | 8 working days |

L-Irlanda | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Ireland | 7 working days |

L-Italja | 10t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Italy | 10 working days |

Il-Latvja | minimu ta' 14-il jum |

Latvia | 14 days minimum |

Il-Litwanja | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Lithuania | 7 working days |

Il-Lussemburgu | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Luxembourg | 7 working days |

Malta | 15-il jum |

Malta | 15 days |

L-Olanda | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Netherlands | 7 working days |

Il-Polonja | 10t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Poland | 10 days |

Il-Portugall | 14-il jum |

Portugal | 14 days |

Is-Slovakkja | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

Slovakia | 7 working days |

Is-Slovenja | 15-il jum |

Slovenia | 15 days |

Spanja | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol ibbażati fuq il-liġi tal-pajjiż fejn se ssir il-kunsinja |

Spain | 7 working days based on the law of country of delivery |

L-Iżvezja | 14-il jum |

Sweden | 14 days |

Ir-Renju Unit | 7t ijiem ta’ xogħol |

United Kingdom | 7 working days |

[1] ĠU L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19.

[1] OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19.

[2] L-Artikolu 15(4) jistipula li “Mhux aktar tard minn erba' snin wara li din id-Direttiva tidħol fis-seħħ il-Kummissjoni għandha tissottometti rapport lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kunsill dwar l-implimentazzjoni ta' din id-Direttiva, akkumpanjat minn proposta għar-reviżjoni tagħha jekk xieraq”.

[2] Article 15(4) stipulates that “No later than four years after the entry into force of this Directive the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of this Directive, accompanied if appropriate by a proposal for the revision thereof”.

[3] Ara l-Komunikazzjoni mill-Kummissjoni lill-Kunsill u lill-Parlament Ewropew tas-16 ta’ Marzu 2005 dwar Regolamentazzjoni Aħjar għat-Tkabbir u Xogħol fl-Unjoni Ewropea (COM(2005) 97 finali) u Komunikazzjoni mill-Kummissjoni lill-Parlament Ewropew, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kumitat Ekonomiku u Soċjali Ewropew u l-Kumitat tar-Reġjuni tal-25 ta’ Ottubru 2005 dwar l-Implimentazzjoni tal-programm tal-Komunità ta’ Liżbona: Strateġija ta' Semplifikazzjoni ta' l-ambjent regolatorju (COM(2005) 535 finali). L-analiżi tal-protezzjoni ta' l-acquis tal-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur fil-Programm ta’ Semplifikazzjoni mehmuż ma’ din il-Komunikazzjoni”.

[3] See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of 16 March 2005 on Better Regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union (COM(2005) 97 final) and Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 October 2005 on Implementing the Community Lisbon programme: a Strategy for the Simplification of the regulatory environment (COM (2005) 535 final). The review of the consumer protection acquis features in the Simplification Rolling Programme annexed to this latter Communication”.

[4] Id-Direttiva 2002/65/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-23 ta' Settembru 2002 li tikkonċerna t-tqegħid fis-suq b'distanza ta' servizzi finanzjarji tal-konsumatur u li temenda d-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 90/619/KEE u d-Direttivi 97/7/KE u 98/27/KE, ĠU L 271, 9.10.2002, p.16.

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

[5] Komunikazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni tas-6 ta’ April 2006 dwar ir-reviżjoni tad-Direttiva 2002/65/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-23 ta' Settembru 2002 li tikkonċerna t-tqegħid fis-suq b'distanza ta' servizzi finanzjarji ta' konsumaturi u li temenda d-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 90/619/KEE u d-Direttivi 97/7/KE u 98/27/KE (COM(2006) 161 finali).

[5] Commission Communication of 6 April 2006 on the review of Directive 2002/65 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Di8ALOUVWuvwxrective 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (COM(2006) 161 final).

[6] Id-Direttiva 2005/29/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-11 ta’ Mejju 2005 dwar prassi kummerċjali inġusti fin-negozju mal-konsumatur fis-suq intern li temenda d-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 84/450/KEE, id-Direttivi 97/7/KE, 98/27/KE u 2002/65/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, u r-Regolament (KE) Nru 2006/2004 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill (“Direttiva dwar Prassi Kummerċjali Inġusti”) ĠU L 149, 11.6.2005 p. 22.

[6] Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (“Unfair Commercial Practices Directive”), OJ L 149, 11.6.2005 p. 22.

[7] l-Artikolu 81 propost tal-COM(2005) 603 finali.

[7] proposed Article 81 of COM(2005) 603 final.

[8] L-Artikolu 1 (3) jinqara flimkien mal-premessa 11 tad-Direttiva 2000/31/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-8 ta' Ġunju 2000 dwar ċerti aspetti legali tas-servizzi tas-soċjetà ta' l-informazzjoni, b'mod partikolari kummerċ elettroniku, fis-Suq Intern (‘Direttiva dwar kummerċ elettroniku’), (ĠU L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1).

[8] Article 1 (3) read together with recital 11 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce'), OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.

[9] Direttiva 94/47/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-26 ta' Ottubru 1994 dwar il-protezzjoni tax-xerrejja f'rispett ta' ċerti aspetti ta' kuntratti relatati max-xiri tad-dritt li jintużaw proprjetajiet immobbli fuq bażi ta' timeshare, ĠU L 280, tad-29.10.1994, p. 83.

[9] Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis, OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.

[10] Każ C-336/03 Easycar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading, ECR 2005, p. I-1947.

[10] Case C-336/03 Easycar (UK) Ltd v Office of Fair Trading , ECR 2005, p. I-1947.

[11] Franza, Spanja u r-Renju Unit.

[11] France, Spain and the United Kingdom.

[12] Id-Direttiva tat-Timeshare tirreferi għal minimu ta’ 10t ijiem kalendarji filwaqt li d-Direttiva ta’ bejgħ fil-Bieb 85/577/KEE tirreferi għal minumu ta’ 7t ijiem, (Direttiva tal-Kunsill 85/577/KEE ta' l-20 ta' Diċembru 1985 biex tħares lill-konsumatur rigward kuntratti nnegozjati barra mill-lok tan-negozju, ĠU L 372, tal-31.12.1985, p.31). Id-Direttiva tat-Tqegħid fis-Suq b'Distanza ta' Servizzi Finanzjarji tirreferi għal 14-il jum kalendarju.

[12] The Timeshare Directive refers to a minimum of 10 calendar days whereas the Doorstep Selling Directive 85/577/EEC refers to a minimum of 7 days, (Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, OJ L 372, 31.12.1985, p. 31) . The Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive refers to 14 calendar days.

[13] [7] Id-Direttiva Nru 2002/58/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-12 ta' Lulju 2002 dwar l-ipproċessar ta' informazzjoni personali u l-protezzjoni tal-privatezza fis-settur tal-komunikazzjoni elettronika (Direttiva dwar il-privatezza u l-komunikazzjoni elettronika, ĠU L 201, tal-31.7.2002, p. 37.

[13] Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37.

Top

CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR HU IT LT LV MT NL PL PT SK SL SV	CS DA DE EL EN ES ET FI FR HU IT LT LV MT NL PL PT SK SL SV
en	mt

Bilingual display

en

mt