PRILOGA I

ISSUES FOR CONSULTATION

When answering the questions below, contributors are encouraged to motivate their answers. It should be noted that all options indicated are non-exhaustive; other solutions may also be put forward.

1.   General Legislative Approach

As indicated in section 4 above, there are different alternatives available to reviewing the consumer legislation.

Vprašanje A1: Kateri je po vašem mnenju najboljši pristop za pregled zakonodaje o varstvu potrošnikov? Možnost 1: Vertikalni pristop, sestavljen iz revizij posameznih direktiv.Možnost 2: Mešani pristop, ki okvirni akt, ki obravnava horizontalna vprašanja, pomembna za vse potrošniške pogodbe, po potrebi kombinira z revizijami obstoječih sektorskih direktiv.Možnost 3: Status quo: brez revizije.

2.   Scope of a Horizontal Instrument

Section 4.4 above highlights different options as to the scope of a possible horizontal instrument. One option would be to adopt a framework instrument with broad coverage, applicable to both domestic and cross-border transactions. Alternatively, the horizontal instrument could cover cross-border contracts only. A third alternative would be to limit the scope of application of the instrument to distance contracts concluded cross-border and domestically.

Vprašanje A2: Katera bi morala biti področja uporabe morebitnega horizontalnega akta? Možnost 1: Uporabljal bi se za vse potrošniške pogodbe, ki se nanašajo bodisi na čezmejne transakcije bodisi na transakcije znotraj države.Možnost 2: Uporabljal bi se samo za čezmejne pogodbe.Možnost 3: Uporabljal bi se samo za pogodbe o prodaji na daljavo, ki so bodisi čezmejne bodisi sklenjene znotraj države.

3.   Degree of Harmonisation

Section 4.5 above discusses the degree of harmonisation that future consumer protection legislation should be based on. Current legislation allows Member States to adopt more stringent national rules through the use of minimum clauses. The resulting fragmentation of rules may create internal market barriers and deter consumers from shopping cross-border. Full harmonisation could represent an option for addressing this problem. A second option would be to keep the minimum harmonisation approach. Minimum harmonisation, as indicated above, could be combined with a mutual recognition clause or with the country of origin principle or with a mutual recognition clause. However, this option would not simplify and rationalise the regulatory environment. Regulatory fragmentation would continue to exist and its negative effects on consumers' confidence in the internal market would not be removed.

Vprašanje A3: Kakšna bi morala biti raven usklajevanja revidiranih direktiv/novega akta? Možnost 1: Revidirana zakonodaja bi temeljila na popolnem usklajevanju, dopolnjenem s klavzulo o vzajemnem priznavanju za vse zadeve, ki niso popolnoma usklajene.Možnost 2: Revidirana zakonodaja bi temeljila na minimalnem usklajevanju, kombiniranem s klavzulo o vzajemnem priznavanju ali z načelom države porekla.

4.   Horizontal Issues

4.1.   Definition of ‘consumer’ and ‘professional’

Currently the directives do not have coherent definitions of the concepts of ‘consumer’ and ‘professional’, although these are fundamental concepts for the application of the consumer acquis. There is no serious justification in terms of the specific purposes of the relevant directives. The uncertainty this causes is aggravated by the fact that the Member States use the minimum clause to extend the vague definitions in different ways. Several stakeholders advocate strongly in favour of consistent definitions of consumer and professional to avoid confusion. In this respect it is also important to ensure coherence with definitions used in other areas of Community legislation.

For instance, the Directive on Doorstep Selling defines consumer as a natural person who is acting for purposes ‘which can be regarded as outside his trade or profession’. The Directive on Price Indications refers to any natural person ‘who buys a product for purposes that do not fall within the sphere of his commercial or professional activity’ and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive refers to ‘purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession’.

Differences between Member States can be noted for example when it comes to individuals buying a product to be used both privately and professionally, e.g. when a doctor buys a car and occasionally uses it to visit his patients. Several Member States have granted natural persons acting for purposes which fall primarily outside their trade, business or profession the same protection as consumers. In addition some businesses, such as individual entrepreneurs or small businesses may sometimes be in a similar situation as consumers when they buy certain goods or services which raises the questions whether they should benefit to a certain extent from the same protection provided for to consumers. During the review the widening of the definitions to cover transactions for mixed purposes should be considered.

Similarly the professional is referred to variously as ‘trader’, ‘seller’, ‘supplier’ etc, depending on the directive. The definitions vary as well: The Distance Selling Directive, for instance, defines the ‘supplier’ as ‘any natural or legal person who … is acting in his commercial or professional capacity’, whereas the Unfair Contract Terms Directive refers to a ‘seller or supplier’ as a natural or legal person who ‘is acting for purposes relating to his trade, business or profession, whether publicly or privately owned’. To overcome the current inconsistencies the notion of ‘professional’ could replace the variety of terms in the existing Directives and apply to all persons who are not deemed to be consumers.

Vprašanje B1: Kako bi morala biti opredeljena pojma potrošnik in poslovni subjekt? Možnost 1: Obstoječi opredelitvi v pravnem redu Skupnosti bi se uskladili, ne da bi se njuna področja uporabe pri tem spremenila. Potrošniki bi bili opredeljeni kot fizične osebe, ki delujejo za namene izven področij svoje trgovske, poslovne ali poklicne dejavnosti. Poslovni subjekti bi bili opredeljeni kot osebe (pravne ali fizične), ki delujejo za namene na področjih svoje trgovske, poslovne in poklicne dejavnosti.Možnost 2: Opredelitvi pojmov potrošnik in poslovni subjekt bi se razširili tako, da bi vključevali fizične osebe, ki delujejo za namene prvotno izven področij (potrošnik) ali prvotno na področjih (poslovni subjekt) svoje trgovske, poslovne ali poklicne dejavnosti.

4.2.   Consumers acting through an intermediary

A consumer is not protected by the acquis when his/her contractual counterpart is another private person. The same goes for the case when an individual is represented by a commercial agent, broker or any other intermediary. A practical example of this is when a car dealer sells a second-hand car on behalf of one consumer to another consumer. It has been argued that in these cases consumers need similar protection as in an ordinary business-to-consumer contract since the other party will benefit from the professional expertise of the intermediary and some Member States have chosen to extend consumer protection to these situations.

However, it may be very difficult to establish clear criteria as to when the role of the intermediary is so strong as to warrant consumer protection. There may be a risk of unforeseen and negative knock-on effects on markets on which private persons trade with private persons.

Against applying consumer protection rules to private sellers it could also be argued that a private person might not realise that contracting a professional as her or his intermediary will put her or him in a position equivalent to a professional. On the other hand, a consumer who concludes a contract with a professional acting as intermediary for a private person may be more in need of protection than his contractual counterpart.

It should be noted that the notion of intermediary would not include trading platforms for sellers and consumers, e.g. on the Internet, where the platform provider is not involved in the conclusion of the contract. The role of intermediaries in electronic commerce, including search engines and auction platforms, is currently being examined in a different context and therefore not covered by this review (1).

Vprašanje B2: Ali bi se morale pogodbe med fizičnimi osebami obravnavati kot potrošniške pogodbe, če ena od strani posluje prek poslovnega subjekta kot posrednika? Možnost 1: Status quo: zakonodaja o varstvu potrošnikov se ne bi uporabljala za pogodbe med potrošniki, če eno od strani pri sklenitvi pogodbe zastopa poslovni subjekt kot posrednik.Možnost 2: Opredelitev pojma potrošniške pogodbe bi vključevala primere, pri katerih eno od strani zastopa poslovni subjekt kot posrednik.

4.3.   The concepts of good faith and fair dealing in the Consumer Acquis

The consumer acquis on contract law does not include a general duty to deal fairly or to act in good faith. A general clause referring to the concept of (un-)fairness exists in Article 5 of Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, which concerns marketing practices, but which does not apply to contracts (2). Article 3 (1) of Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts constitutes a general clause referring to ‘(un-) fairness’ and contains a definition of that term for the purposes of the Directive.

The main advantage of an overarching general clause for consumer contracts in the horizontal instrument would be the creation of a tool which would provide guidance for the interpretation of more specific provisions and would allow the courts to fill gaps in the legislation by developing complementary rights and obligations. It could therefore provide a safety net for consumers and create certainty for producers by filling gaps in legislation. In addition, a general provision may also be a useful tool when interpreting clauses contained in offers or contracts and it may as well respond to the criticism that certain directives or provisions are not time-proof. A general provision could be built round the phrase ‘good faith and fair dealing’. This includes the idea that they show due regard to the interests of the other party, considering the specific situation of certain consumers.

The disadvantage of such a general clause is that it does not encompass precisely the rights and obligations imposed on each party. Its interpretation may vary from Member State to Member State.

If included, such a general principle should apply from the negotiation phase to the execution of the contract, including remedies. It would also prevent the emergence of the kind of problems encountered with the current consumer protection directives, due to legislation being overtaken by technological and market developments.

Vprašanje C: Ali bi moral horizontalni akt vključevati daljnosežno obveznost poslovnih subjektov, da naj delujejo v skladu z načeloma dobre vere in pravičnega ravnanja? Možnost 1: Horizontalni akt bi določal, da se v skladu s potrošniškim pogodbenim pravom EU od poslovnih subjektov pričakuje, da delujejo po načelu dobre vere.Možnost 2: Ohranil bi se status quo: splošne klavzule ne bi bilo.Možnost 3: Dodala bi se splošna klavzula, ki bi se uporabljala za poslovne subjekte in potrošnike.

4.4.   The scope of application of the EU rules on unfair terms

4.4.1.   Extension of the scope to individually negotiated terms

The Directive on unfair contract terms currently applies to non-negotiated terms only, i.e. contractual clauses which the consumer has had no possibility to influence during the negotiation process. In practice, the Directive is in most cases applicable to pre-formulated contract terms used in mass transactions. In reality consumers often have only a very limited possibility to influence the content of a clause even if it theoretically is open to negotiations. A number of Member States have specific rules on the (un-)fairness of individually negotiated terms.

If it is decided to include individually negotiated terms, the test of unfairness could be reformulated so that it ensures that the competent authorities will take into account the actual ability of individual consumers to influence the terms of the contract. Alternatively, this test could be restricted to the list of terms annexed to the directive.

In the absence of specific rules, the unfairness of negotiated terms would be assessed under the principle of good faith (see 4.3).

Vprašanje D1: Do kolikšne mere bi morala pravila o nepravičnih pogodbenih pogojih vključevati tudi individualno dogovorjene pogoje? Možnost 1: Obseg uporabe direktive o nedovoljenih pogojih bi se razširil na individualno dogovorjene pogoje.Možnost 2: Za individualno dogovorjene pogoje bi se uporabljal samo seznam pogojev iz priloge k direktivi.Možnost 3: Status quo: pravila Skupnosti bi se še naprej uporabljala izključno za pogoje, ki niso bili dogovorjeni ali vnaprej določeni.

4.5.   List of unfair terms

The rationale behind the list attached to the current Directive on unfair contract terms is to provide guidance to the Member States as to what contractual terms can be challenged under the unfairness test. As the list has a purely indicative character, it may lead to divergent application in Member States.

It should be considered whether a term included in a list of unfair terms of a horizontal instrument should be considered unfair in all circumstances (black list) or unfair unless the examination of the specific circumstances of the contract (including any individual negotiation) shows the contrary (i.e. a rebuttable presumption of unfairness – grey list). These two options could also be combined, i.e. some terms would be considered unfair in all circumstances while other terms are presumed to be unfair. That option has been considered by the CFR researchers.

A comitology mechanism could be included in the horizontal instrument in order to update the list of terms.

Vprašanje D2: Kakšen bi moral biti status kakršnega koli seznama nepravičnih pogodbenih pogojev, ki bi bil vključen v horizontalni akt? Možnost 1: Status quo: ohrani se obstoječi okvirni seznam.Možnost 2: Za nekatere pogodbene pogoje bi se uvedla ovrgljiva domneva o nepravičnosti (sivi seznam). Pri tej možnosti bi se za ugotavljanje pravičnosti kombinirale smernice in prožnost.Možnost 3: Sestavil bi se seznam pogojev – domnevno veliko krajši od obstoječega seznama – ki se v vsakem primeru obravnavajo kot nepravični (črni seznam).Možnost 4: Kombinacija možnosti 2 in 3: nekateri pogoji bi se v celoti prepovedali, za druge pa bi se uporabljala ovrgljiva domneva o nepravičnosti.

4.6.   Scope of the unfairness test

Under the Directive on Unfair Terms a non-negotiated contractual term is considered unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, i.e. the unfairness test. According to this test, the assessment of the unfair nature of the terms relates neither to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price (as far these terms are expressed in plain intelligible language).

National laws typically allow the aggrieved party to avoid the contract only where he or she has had little choice as to whether to conclude the contract and the situation has been exploited by the contractual counterpart through charging an exorbitant price. An example of this would be where a consumer whose car breaks down in the middle of a rural area at night may agree to pay a disproportionate price for the repair.

Especially if the scope of the directive were to be extended to negotiated terms, the question arises as to whether the unfairness test should be widened to assess all core terms of a contract, including the main subject matter of the contract and the adequacy of the price.

Vprašanje D3: Ali bi se moral obseg preizkusa nepravičnosti direktive o nedovoljenih pogojih razširiti? Možnost 1: Preizkus nepravičnosti bi se razširil tako, da bi vključeval opredelitev glavnega predmeta pogodbe in primernosti cene.Možnost 2: Status quo: preizkus nepravičnosti bi ostal nespremenjen.

4.7.   Information requirements

Several Directives impose obligations on professionals to provide consumers with information before, at or after the conclusion of the contract. Failure to comply with these obligations is however regulated in an incomplete and inconsistent way. In several cases no remedies are available when information duties are ignored by professionals. Even an extension of the cooling-off periods for failure to provide information, as it is provided for in the Distance Selling and Timeshare Directives, may not be sufficient since the consumer loses his right to withdraw from the contract within three months. Consumer organisations quote the lack of information as one of the main problems in relation to distance selling, whereas business stakeholders deplore the complexity of the current situation.

The Commission is of the opinion that although the horizontal instrument should not cover the existence and the content of the information requirements, considering the varying purposes of consumer information in the different vertical directives, it could encompass provisions on the failure to fulfil information requirements. One possibility is that the horizontal instrument would provide for an extension of the cooling-off period for failure to comply with information requirements. Another solution would be to combine such an extension of the cooling–off period with general remedies for the most serious breaches of information duties (e.g. no information on price and address of the professional).

Vprašanje E: Kakšni naj bi bili pogodbeni učinki v primeru neizpolnjevanja zahtev glede obveščanja iz pravnega reda Skupnosti o varstvu potrošnikov? Možnost 1: Obdobje za razmislek kot enotno pravno sredstvo za neizpolnjevanje zahtev glede obveščanja bi se podaljšalo, na primer za do tri mesece.Možnost 2: Za kršitve različnih skupin obveznosti glede obveščanja bi obstajala različna pravna sredstva: nekatere kršitve na predpogodbeni in pogodbeni ravni bi zahtevale pravna sredstva (ob nepravilnih informacijah o ceni proizvoda bi potrošnik na primer imel pravico izogniti se pogodbi), druga neizpolnjevanja obveznosti glede obveščanja pa bi se obravnavala drugače (na primer s podaljšanjem obdobja za razmislek ali brez kakršne koli pogodbene sankcije).Možnost 3: Status quo: pogodbeni učinki v primeru nezagotavljanja informacij bi se še naprej urejali različno za različne vrste pogodb.

4.8.   Right of withdrawal

4.8.1.   The cooling-off periods

The Directives on Timeshare, Doorstep Selling and Distance Selling give consumers the right to withdraw from the contract within a certain period. There are significant divergences in relation to the length of these periods, and as to the beginning and calculation of the periods (in calendar or working days). Such differences may be confusing for consumers and can create legal uncertainty in case of overlaps between Directives (3).

The horizontal instrument could provide for common rules on the time frames for all types of contracts for which a right of withdrawal exists, so as to increase legal certainty.

An alternative could be to group the directives into two categories, attaching to each of them a specific withdrawal period. The reason for this would be that different directives grant consumers a right to withdrawal for different reasons, e.g. to allow consumers to compare the price and quality of the products ordered in a door step situation with alternative offers or to allow consumers to see the product ordered at a distance.

Whichever of the two alternatives is chosen, the Commission is of the view that all periods should be uniformly counted in calendar days rather than working days to increase legal certainty. The concept of working days is differently interpreted by the Member States and varying national holidays may cause uncertainties for consumers and businesses.

Vprašanje F1: Ali bi se morala dolžina obdobij za razmislek uskladiti v celotnem pravnem redu Skupnosti o varstvu potrošnikov? Možnost 1: Za vse primere, pri katerih ima potrošnik v skladu z direktivami o varstvu potrošnikov pravico do odstopa od pogodbe, bi obstajalo enotno obdobje za razmislek, na primer 14 koledarskih dni.Možnost 2: Opredeljeni bi bili dve kategoriji direktiv, za vsako pa bi bilo določeno lastno obdobje za razmislek (na primer 10 koledarskih dni za pogodbe o prodaji od vrat do vrat in pogodbe o prodaji na daljavo ter 14 koledarskih dni za časovni zakup).Možnost 3: Status quo: obdobja za razmislek se ne bi usklajevala v pravnem redu Skupnosti o varstvu potrošnikov; urejala bi se v sektorski zakonodaji.

4.8.2.   The modalities of exercising the right of withdrawal

The modalities of exercising the right of withdrawal are currently regulated differently across the consumer acquis. There are also significant differences in the Member States’ transposition of the directives. In some countries consumers may choose how to notify the seller (e.g. by sending an email or simply by returning the good to the seller), whereas in others the consumer is obliged to use a certain procedure such as registered mail. Clarifying the rules on how to return products could increase consumer confidence in cross-border transactions. A recent Eurobarometer survey shows that, in relation to distance selling, 65 % of consumers consider that there are more problems with returning a good during the cooling off period when it was bought cross-border.

To clarify and simplify matters, the provisions on the modalities of exercising the right of withdrawal could be harmonised in the horizontal instrument.

Vprašanje F2: Kako naj bi se uveljavljala pravica do odstopa od pogodbe? Možnost 1: Status quo: države članice bi svobodno določale obliko obveščanja o odstopu od pogodbe.Možnost 2: Uvedel bi se enoten postopek za obveščanje o odstopu od pogodbe v celotnem pravnem redu Skupnosti o varstvu potrošnikov.Možnost 3: Izključile bi se vse uradne zahteve v zvezi z obveščanjem o odstopu. Potrošnik bi nato imel pravico do odstopa od pogodbe na kakršen koli način (vključno z vrnitvijo blaga).

4.8.3.   The contractual effects of withdrawal

The effect on the contract when the consumer exercises his or her right of withdrawal is regulated differently for different types of contract in the acquis. The Doorstep Selling Directive provides only that withdrawal releases consumers from any obligations under the cancelled contract. Other legal effects are to be determined by national law. The Directive on Distance Selling provides instead that when the right of cancellation is exercised, the seller is obliged to reimburse the sums paid by the consumer free of charge as soon as possible and in any case within 30 days. The only charge that may be made to the consumer is the direct cost of returning the goods.

The horizontal instrument could harmonise the provisions on the effects of withdrawal. The rule that consumers should not bear any costs when exercising their right of cancellation could be spelled out more clearly and made general whereby the option for Member States to impose charges on consumers in the event of cancellation could be removed. In addition, the horizontal instrument could provide for a general time limit by which the professional would have to reimburse consumers who exercise their right to withdraw, as it is currently the case in respect of contracts concluded at a distance.

Vprašanje F3: Kakšni stroški bi morali biti uvedeni za potrošnike v primeru odstopa od pogodbe? Možnost 1: Obstoječe zakonodajne možnosti bi se odpravile – potrošniki ob uveljavljanju pravice do preklica ne bi imeli nobenih stroškov.Možnost 2: Obstoječe možnosti bi se posplošile: potrošniki bi ob uveljavljanju pravice do odstopa od pogodbe imeli enake stroške ne glede na vrsto pogodbe.Možnost 3: Status quo: ohranile bi se obstoječe zakonodajne možnosti.

4.9.   General contractual remedies

The acquis does not provide for a general set of remedies available to consumers for all consumer contracts. Existing remedies are limited to particular types of contracts. The Directive on Sale of Consumer Goods for example, grants consumers some remedies, but not all of those remedies apply to all consumer contracts. The absence of general remedies at EU level creates a deficit in consumer protection.

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, 71 % of consumers consider it harder to resolve problems such as complaints, returns, price reductions and guarantees when shopping cross-border. Common EU-wide remedies in the horizontal instrument could contribute to addressing this problem. However, this would not tackle the problems faced by consumers concerning the enforcement of rights against a person established in another country. Reduction of the price and termination of a contract could be construed as remedies of general application. Also the introduction of a general right to withhold performance in case of breach of a consumer contract could be considered. Under this option, if the consumer has not yet performed his or her obligations (typically the payment of the price) – the professional who is in breach of the contract cannot enforce his rights against the consumer until he performs correctly.

Vprašanje G1: Ali bi moral horizontalni akt določati splošna pogodbena pravna sredstva, ki so potrošnikom na razpolago? Možnost 1: Status quo: obstoječa zakonodaja določa pravna sredstva, ki so omejena na določene vrste pogodb (tj. prodajne pogodbe). Splošna pogodbena pravna sredstva bi urejala nacionalna zakonodaja.Možnost 2: Določena bi bila skupina splošnih pogodbenih pravnih sredstev, ki so potrošnikom na razpolago v primeru kršitve kakršne koli potrošniške pogodbe. Navedena pravna sredstva bi vključevala: pravico potrošnika, da odpove pogodbo, zaprosi za nižjo ceno in zavrne storitev.

4.10.   General right to damages

In addition to the right to withhold performance and the right to reduction of price and termination of contract, the horizontal instrument could foresee a general right to damages for breach of a consumer contract. At the moment, the issue of damages is not regulated in the Community acquis, the only exception being the Package Travel Directive. The relationship between domestic rules on damages and the remedies provided for by the specific directives is unclear. Different solutions are possible. The horizontal instrument could merely introduce a general right to damages for consumers or it could specify that these damages should cover only purely economic damages or both economic and moral losses as in the Package Travel Directive.

Vprašanje G2: Ali naj bi potrošniki v skladu s horizontalnim aktom imeli splošno pravico do odškodnine v primeru kršitve pogodbe? Možnost 1: Status quo: vprašanje pogodbene odškodnine bi urejala nacionalna zakonodaja, razen če je odškodnina določena v pravnem redu Skupnosti (na primer za paketno potovanje).Možnost 2: Potrošniki bi imeli splošno pravico do odškodnine – imeli bi pravico zahtevati odškodnino za kakršno koli kršitev ne glede na vrsto kršitve in naravo pogodbe. Vendar pa bi države članice še naprej odločale, za kakšno vrsto škode se lahko izplača odškodnina.Možnost 3: Potrošniki bi imeli splošno pravico do odškodnine, navedena odškodnina pa bi morala kriti vsaj čisto gospodarsko (materialno) škodo, ki jo je potrošnik utrpel zaradi kršitve. Države članice bi nato lahko svobodno urejale ne-gospodarsko izgubo (na primer moralno škodo).Možnost 4: Potrošniki bi imeli splošno pravico do odškodnine, navedena odškodnina pa bi morala kriti čisto gospodarsko (materialno) škodo in moralno izgubo.

5.   Specific rules applicable to Consumer Sales

5.1.   Types of contracts to be covered

The Directive on Consumer Sales applies to sales contracts. It does not apply to any other type of contract involving the supply of goods, except for goods to be manufactured in the future. Therefore a consumer who hires a car is not protected by its provisions. Likewise, as the supply of digital content is not covered by the Directive, a consumer who downloads music from the Internet is not protected either. This is a potential consumer protection lacuna. If the horizontal instrument were to cover these types of contracts, consumers would enjoy the same protection against lack of conformity regardless of the legal nature of the contract.

The lack of coverage of contracts for the supply of software and data (so called ‘contracts providing digital content’) is a particularly important problem. With the increase in digital content consumption, questions of liability (e.g. when software damages hardware) and guarantee from defects will grow in importance. Several consumer complaints point, for instance, to problems with music downloaded from the internet or used in MP3 players, software and digital content to be used in mobile phones (e.g. ring tones). An extension of the coverage of consumer protection rules to such situations would allow consumers to make use of remedies for non-conformity and obtain damages. Such an extension of the scope of the Directive may, however, require specific rules since digital content is usually licensed rather than sold to the consumers.

Vprašanje H1: Ali bi morala pravila o potrošniški prodaji vključevati dodatne vrste pogodb, po katerih so potrošniki oskrbljeni z blagom ali so jim ponujene storitve z digitalno vsebino? Možnost 1: Status quo: tj. obseg uporabe bi bil omejen na prodajo potrošniškega blaga; edina izjema bi bilo blago, ki se bo šele proizvedlo.Možnost 2: Obseg bi se razširil na dodatne vrste pogodb, po katerih so potrošniki oskrbljeni z blagom (na primer najem vozil).Možnost 3: Obseg bi se razširil na dodatne vrste pogodb, po katerih se potrošnikom nudijo storitve z digitalnimi vsebinami (na primer spletna glasba).Možnost 4: Kombinacija možnosti 2 in 3.

5.2.   Second-hand goods sold at public auctions

Under Article 1 (3) of the Directive, Member States may provide that the definition of consumer goods does not cover ‘second-hand goods sold at public auctions where the consumer has the opportunity to attend the sale in person’. This exemption is a source of uncertainty both for businesses and consumers. A horizontal instrument could define the notion of ‘public auctions’ in order to remove this uncertainty; having said this it may be necessary to follow a specific and different approach for on-line auction.

Vprašanje H2: Ali bi se morala pravila za potrošniško prodajo uporabljati za rabljeno blago, ki se prodaja na javnih dražbah? Možnost 1: Da.Možnost 2: Ne, bilo bi izključeno iz obsega pravil Skupnosti.

5.3.   General obligations of a seller – delivery and conformity of goods

According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, 66 % of consumers perceive that delivery in the context of cross-border sales may cause more problems than for domestic sales. Adding rules on delivery should increase legal certainty and thereby consumer confidence.

The Directive on Sale of Consumer Goods provides that the seller must deliver goods which are in conformity with the sales contract. However, it does not define the notion of delivery. This is unfortunate, since the moment of delivery is the starting point for time limits for the exercise of fundamental consumer rights, e.g. remedies for non-conformity. The concept of delivery is also important for the passing of the risk (4).

The Directive does not provide for remedies against lack of delivery, late or partial delivery. Regulating such questions in the horizontal instrument would require a definition of delivery.

The horizontal instrument could clarify whether delivery means that the consumer has materially received the goods (i.e. the consumer has acquired physical possession of the good, for example by collecting the ordered car from the dealer) or whether it is sufficient that the goods are put at the consumer’s disposal (e.g. the dealer informs the consumer that the ordered car has arrived at his garage and is ready to be picked up). The horizontal instrument could also provide that, as a default rule, delivery takes place when the consumer acquires physical possession of the good. The parties would remain free to agree otherwise.

Vprašanje I1: Kako bi morala biti opredeljena dobava? Možnost 1: Dobava bi pomenila, da potrošnik fizično prejme blago (tj. blago je predano potrošniku).Možnost 2: Dobava bi pomenila, da je blago potrošniku na voljo ob času in na kraju, določenem v pogodbi.Možnost 3: Dobava bi praviloma pomenila, da potrošnik fizično prevzame blago, toda strani se lahko dogovorita drugače.Možnost 4: Status quo: izraz dobava ne bi bil opredeljen.

5.4.   The passing of risk in consumer sales

An issue connected to the definition of delivery is whether the horizontal instrument should regulate the passing of risk in consumer sales, i.e. the question of the point at which the professional bears the risk and the cost of any deterioration or destruction of the good and when this risk passes to the consumer, e.g. in a situation where a good is damaged or destroyed while in transit from the seller to the consumer. At the moment, the issue is regulated differently in the Member States. In some Member States the risk passes to the buyer at the time of the conclusion of the contract while in others property does not pass with the conclusion of the sales contract but with the delivery.

The passing of the risk could be linked to the moment of delivery. Depending on the definition of delivery, this could be at the time when the consumer acquires physical possession of the good or at an earlier stage.

Vprašanje I2: Kako bi se moral urejati prenos tveganja pri potrošniških prodajah? Možnost 1: Prenos tveganja bi se urejal na ravni Skupnosti in bi bil povezan s trenutkom dobave.Možnost 2: Status quo: prenos tveganja bi urejale države članice, kar bi posledično privedlo do različnih rešitev.

5.5.   Conformity of goods

5.5.1.   Introduction

The duty of the seller to deliver goods in conformity with the contract is the cornerstone of the Directive on Consumer Sales. The Directive establishes a presumption that goods are in conformity with the contract if they fulfil a series of conditions which are considered to be implied by the contract (e.g. that the goods are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used).

5.5.2.   Extension of time limits

Under the directive, the seller is liable for any lack of conformity which existed at the time of delivery and becomes apparent within two years from that moment (legal guarantee). The Directive does not regulate the suspension or interruption of the two-year period in the event of repair, replacement or negotiations between seller and consumer. Some Member States have introduced specific rules on the extension of the period during which the seller is liable while the seller is trying to cure the defect, whereas others have not introduced such rules. This has led to significant divergences among national laws impeding cross border trade. A horizontal instrument could provide that the duration of the legal guarantee is extended for a period corresponding to the time during which the consumer was not able to use the goods because some remedy was being performed.

Vprašanje J1: Ali bi po horizontalnem aktu morali biti roki v primeru neskladnosti podaljšani za obdobje, v katerem so bila izvedena pravna sredstva? Možnost 1: Status quo: brez sprememb.Možnost 2: Da. Horizontalni akt bi določal, da se trajanje pravnega jamstva podaljša za obdobje, v katerem potrošnik ni mogel uporabljati blaga zaradi izvedbe pravnih sredstev.

5.5.3.   Recurring defects

It may happen that defects which became apparent within two years from delivery re-appear after the expiry of the legal guarantee, even though they have been repaired. In these cases, consumers are left with goods which were already defective at the moment of delivery, but for which any further repair is at the expense of the consumers. Some Member States have introduced specific rules to deal with recurring defects.

A horizontal instrument could provide that when the seller repairs the goods during the period of the legal guarantee, the guarantee is automatically extended to cover any future re-emergence of the same defect for a period to be specified since repair. The issue of recurring defects could also be relevant in the context of remedies, possibly justifying a consumer’s claim for replacement instead of another repair.

Vprašanje J2: Ali bi moralo biti jamstvo avtomatično podaljšano v primeru popravila blaga, tako da bi vključevalo ponovna popravila zaradi iste napake? Možnost 1: Status quo: jamstvo ne bi bilo podaljšano.Možnost 2: Trajanje pravnega jamstva bi bilo podaljšano za obdobje, ki bi bilo določeno po popravilu, tako da bi vključevalo ponovna popravila zaradi iste napake.

5.5.4.   Second-hand goods

Member States may currently provide that, in case of second-hand goods, the seller and the consumer may agree on a shorter time period for the liability of the seller, provided this period is not less than one year. Varying conditions in different Member States cause legal uncertainty.

This could be corrected by eliminating the possibility for the seller and the consumer to agree on a shorter time period of liability. This should not create any disproportionate burden on professionals since they would only remain responsible for those defects which already existed at the moment of delivery (5).

Another option could be to allow professionals and consumers throughout Europe to agree on a shorter period for the seller’s liability for lack of conformity.

Vprašanje J3: Ali bi morala obstajati specifična pravila za rabljeno blago? Možnost 1: Horizontalni akt ne bi vključeval nobenega odstopanja za rabljeno blago: prodajalec in potrošnik se ne bi mogla dogovoriti o krajšem obdobju za odgovornost glede napak pri rabljenem blagu.Možnost 2: Horizontalni akt bi vključeval specifična pravila za rabljeno blago: prodajalec in potrošnik se lahko dogovorita o krajšem obdobju za odgovornost glede napak pri rabljenem blagu (toda ne krajšem od enega leta).

5.6.   Burden of proof

The Directive establishes a rebuttable presumption that any lack of conformity which becomes apparent within six months from delivery shall be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. However, such presumption does not apply when it is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the nature of the lack of conformity.

The Commission has been informed that it is difficult to apply a system with a rebuttable presumption that can only be used when it is compatible with the nature of the goods and the defects. Once the six-month period has passed, consumers have to prove a fact (the existence of the defect at the time of delivery) which is extremely difficult to establish without access to relevant technical data and/or specialised assistance. Even during the first six months it is in each case necessary to examine whether the consumer can actually invoke the presumption and obtain the reversal of the burden of proof. This way the reversal of the burden of proof serves de facto as a limitation of the legal guarantee (6).

The Commission wonders if the present regime should not be changed. A horizontal instrument could provide that the professional would have to prove that the defects did not exist at the time of delivery since the seller is better placed than the consumer to access relevant data (e.g. by contacting the producer) and provided that the consumer acts in good faith. In any case the reversal of the burden of proof applies only if compatible with the nature of the goods and of the defects. The seller would, therefore, still be able to escape this reversal of the burden of proof in case of normal wear and tear.

Vprašanje J4: Kdo bi moral dokazati, da so napake ob času dobave že obstajale? Možnost 1: Status quo: v prvih šestih mesecih bi moral dokazati poslovni subjekt, da napaka ob času dobave ni obstajala.Možnost 2: Poslovni subjekt bi moral dokazati, da napaka ni obstajala ob času dobave za celotno trajanje pravnega jamstva, v kolikor bi to bilo združljivo z naravo blaga in z napakami.

5.7.   Remedies

5.7.1.   Introduction

In the context of consumer sales, remedies should lead to the fulfilment of consumers’ reasonable expectations in relation to the contract. However, the Directive provides for remedies only in the case of non-conformity and not other kinds of breaches of contract, e.g. when the goods are not delivered at all. Consumers perceive the existing rules as unsatisfactory. Approximately 70 % of consumers state that when buying goods cross-border it is harder to resolve problems such as returns or price reduction in comparison with the domestic situations.

As mentioned in point 4.9 in this annex, the horizontal instrument might provide for some general remedies, which would apply to any breaches of consumer contracts. The remaining, sale-specific remedies (repair and replacement) could continue to be available only in case of non-conformity of the goods.

5.7.2.   The order in which remedies may be invoked

Currently the Directive provides for a particular order in which remedies may be invoked. Reduction of price or termination of contract can only be invoked if repair and replacement are impossible or disproportionate. The Commission has been informed that it is difficult for consumers to assess whether a professional’s claim that a particular remedy would be disproportionate is right or not.

A horizontal instrument could allow consumers to choose freely amongst the available remedies in case of wrong performance. However, to limit the economic burden on the professional, termination of contract would remain available only in case of non-performance and breaches that are so serious as to give consumers reasonable grounds to refuse correct performance.

Alternatively, the horizontal instrument could maintain the current sequence of remedies, with some amendments. For instance, it could provide that the reduction of the price is available immediately as an alternative to repair and replacement, while at the same time altering the conditions under which the consumer can ‘move’ from these first-line remedies to the termination of contract (e.g. in the case of recurring defects).

Vprašanje K1: Ali bi moralo biti potrošniku dovoljeno, da svobodno izbira razpoložljiva pravna sredstva? Možnost 1: Status quo: potrošniki bi bili obvezani, da najprej zahtevajo popravilo/nadomestilo, za nižjo ceno ali odpoved pogodbe pa bi lahko zaprosili, samo če druga pravna sredstva ne bi bila na razpolago.Možnost 2: Potrošniki bi lahko že na začetku izbrali katero koli razpoložljivo pravno sredstvo. Vendar pa bi bila odpoved pogodbe mogoča samo pod določenimi pogoji.Možnost 3: Potrošniki bi bili obvezani, da najprej zahtevajo popravilo, nadomestilo ali nižjo ceno, za odpoved pogodbe pa bi lahko zaprosili, samo če navedena pravna sredstva ne bi bila na razpolago.

5.8.   Notification of the lack of conformity

The Directive allows Member States to provide that the consumer must inform the seller of the lack of conformity within a period of no less than two months from the moment of discovery in order to benefit from his rights. Most Member States have made use of this option, some of them waiving this obligation only in certain circumstances. The horizontal instrument should eliminate the existing divergences, which cause confusion for consumers and businesses.

Vprašanje K2: Ali bi morali potrošniki prodajalca obvestiti o neskladnosti? Možnost 1: Uvedla bi se obveznost glede obveščanja prodajalca o kakršni koli napaki.Možnost 2: Uvedla bi se obveznost glede obveščanja v nekaterih primerih (če prodajalec na primer deluje v nasprotju z zahtevo o načelu dobre vere ali pa je skrajno malomaren).Možnost 3: Obveznost glede obveščanja znotraj določenega obdobja bi bila odpravljena.

5.9.   Direct producers’ liability for non-conformity

A number of Member States have introduced various forms of direct liability of producers. These differ considerably as to the conditions and modalities. The horizontal instrument may address these divergences by introducing rules on the direct liability of producers (e.g. the introduction on an EU wide producer’s liability) so that consumers would be able to request certain remedies directly from the manufacturer (and possibly from the importer) throughout the EU. This would eliminate possible internal market barriers and would favour especially consumers buying cross-border. A more detailed analysis can be found in the Report on the implementation of the Consumer Sales Directive.

The issue of producers’ liability in the context of the review of the acquis is limited to situations where a good is not in conformity with the consumer contract, e.g. the product does not have the quality or characteristics that the consumer is entitled to expect. Liability for damage caused by the defectiveness of a product, i.e. death, personal injuries or destruction of any item of property other than the defective product itself, is regulated by the Product Liability Directive and falls outside the scope of the review (7).

Vprašanje L: Ali bi s horizontalnim aktom morala biti uvedena neposredna odgovornost proizvajalcev za neskladnost? Možnost 1: Status quo: na ravni EU ne bi bilo uvedeno nobeno pravilo o neposredni odgovornosti proizvajalca.Možnost 2: Uvedena bi bila neposredna odgovornost za proizvajalce pod zgoraj navedenimi pogoji.

5.10.   Consumer Goods Guarantees (Commercial guarantees)

On top of the rights conferred upon consumers by legislation, sellers or producers may offer consumers additional rights on a voluntary basis (a so-called commercial guarantee). They can, for example, grant consumers certain rights in case the goods do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement and in associated advertising.

5.10.1.   Content of the commercial guarantee

The directive does not address the question of what happens if the guarantee statement omits to inform the consumer on the content of the guarantee. It has been stated that the current situation may mislead consumers who rely on such vague statements without checking whether they are actually granted any additional rights.

A horizontal instrument could remedy this situation by providing a default content of a guarantee setting out basic rights which the guarantee holder should have if these are not spelled out in the guarantee document. These may include a right to replacement or repair if goods are not in conformity with the contract. If the duration of the commercial guarantee is not indicated it could apply to the estimated life-span of the goods. It would have to be EU-wide. Finally, the costs of invoking and performing the guarantee would be borne by the guarantor.

Vprašanje M1: Ali bi moral horizontalni akt določati standardno vsebino tržnih garancij? Možnost 1: Status quo: horizontalni akt ne bi vključeval nobenih standardnih pravil.Možnost 2: Uvedena bi bila standardna pravila za tržne garancije.

5.10.2.   The transferability of the commercial guarantee

The directive does not regulate the issue of the transferability of the commercial guarantee to subsequent buyers. This is important for consumers who intend to re-sell a product as well as for subsequent buyers who would like the products still to be covered by the commercial guarantee especially in the context of a cross-border transaction.

The horizontal instrument may address this problem by providing that a guarantee would benefit also subsequent buyers of a product. Such a rule could have a mandatory or default character (i.e. the seller would be able to limit the transferability of the guarantee in certain circumstances).

Vprašanje M2: Ali bi moral horizontalni akt urejati prenosljivost tržne garancije? Možnost 1: Status quo: pravila Skupnosti ne bi urejala možnosti prenosa tržne garancije.Možnost 2: Uvedeno bi bilo obvezujoče pravilo, po katerem je garancija avtomatično prenesena na nadaljnje kupce.Možnost 3: Horizontalni akt bi določal prenosljivost standardnega pravila, tj. garant bi lahko izključil ali omejil možnost prenosa tržne garancije.

5.10.3.   Commercial guarantees for specific parts

In the case of complex goods (e.g. cars) producers offer commercial guarantees limited to specific parts. The horizontal instrument could make sure that consumers are clearly informed on which parts are covered by a particular guarantee. If such information is not provided the limitation would be without any effect.

Vprašanje M3: Ali bi moral horizontalni akt urejati tržne garancije, omejene na določen del? Možnost 1: Status quo: horizontalni akt ne bi urejal možnosti določitve tržne garancije, omejene na določen del.Možnost 2: Horizontalni akt bi določal samo obveznosti glede obveščanja.Možnost 3: Horizontalni akt bi vključeval obveznost glede obveščanja in bi praviloma določal, da garancija krije celotno pogodbeno blago.

6.   Other issues

In this document stakeholders are consulted on a number of issues that have been identified as important in the context of the review of the consumer acquis. The Commission welcomes information and suggestions on any other matter deemed to be pertinent and relevant to overall objectives of the review.

Vprašanje N: Ali v okviru zakonodaje o varstvu potrošnikov obstajajo še druga vprašanja ali področja, ki bi jih bilo treba podrobneje raziskati ali obravnavati na ravni EU?

---

(1)  Conclusions will be announced in the Second Report on the application of the Directive 2000/31, to be adopted in 2008.

(2)  Article 5 of the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices outlaws marketing practices which – contrary to the requirement of professional diligence – can adversely affect the economic behaviour of consumers.

(3)  See e.g. the case C-423/97 Travel Vac, where the ECJ found that the Doorstep Selling Directive was applicable to a timeshare contract.

(4)  See point 5.5 in this annex.

(5)  In addition, as it is mentioned below, the presumption that the defects which become apparent within six months from delivery were already existent at that moment only applies if it is not incompatible with the nature of the goods and the nature of the defects. These rules ensure an adequately differentiated treatment of second hand goods vis-à-vis new products.

(6)  For instance in some Member States, after the six months period, consumers are forced by the sellers to prove the existence of the defect at the moment of delivery by producing expensive technical reports.

(7)  Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products.

PRILOGA II

CONSUMER DIRECTIVES UNDER REVIEW

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.