13.7.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/39

1.

This proposed directive to codify Directive 98/27/CE (1) looks again at and modifies the proposal on the same subject submitted on 12 May 2003 (2), on which the Committee issued a favourable opinion (3).

2.

This current proposal had to been drawn up because, in the meantime, Directive 2005/29/CE on unfair commercial practices was published on 11 June 2005; this expressly recognised that such practices may be the subject of injunctions provided for in the said directive, with a view to preventing and stopping such unfair practices and making it legitimate for organisations representing collective consumer interests to go to court to have these injunctions imposed.

3.

As referred to in the above-mentioned opinion, the Committee notes that, in line with the Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 20 December 1994, no substantial change may be made as part of a codification. Thorough examination of the alterations proposed here reveals that this principle has been complied with; it should be pointed out that the Commission has met the Committee's request, set out in its earlier opinion, that the proposed directive be accompanied by the full text of the amended proposal, where all the changes made are clearly marked.

4.

The Committee nevertheless feels it must mention that in its opinion on the first Commission proposal on this subject (4), on which the current Directive 98/27/CE is based, it pointed out that the reference in Article 1(1) to an ‘annex’ with a list of directives does unfortunately give rise to a need for constant updating whenever, as is the case here, another directive is published containing substantive legislation requiring implementation by means of measures of the type set out in the articles in the present proposal, for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (5).

4.1

In addition, this manner of drafting the articles reflects an unnecessarily complicated form of legislation, which runs counter to the goals of ‘better lawmaking’ and ‘simplification of legislation’, which the EESC shares with the Commission.

5.

Furthermore, publication of Directive 2005/29/CE (6) and, more specifically, the provisions of Articles 11 and 14, strengthen the recommendation already made in the afore-mentioned 1996 EESC opinion, and acknowledged at the time, that there was a ‘case for liability actions, which would be an effective complement to injunctions’.

5.1

Consequently the EESC calls on the Commission to give further thought to the suitability of extending the sphere of application of measures for representing collective interests, namely those of consumers.

6.

In conclusion, the Committee, within the strict limits of the codification effected by the Commission on the basis of the decision of 1 April 1987 [COM(1987) 868 PV], is favourable to this proposal, as it has been previously in relation to the same directive.