Harmonisatie consumentenrechten kan slecht uitpakken voor consument zelf (en)

The total harmonisation of consumer rights in the EU, as proposed by the European Commission, could lead to a levelling-down of certain rights, according to MEPs and experts who met on Tuesday to discuss the issue.

The starting point is a desire to overcome the fragmentation of the internal market. At present, consumers do not have the same rights in all Member States and companies have to comply with national laws that vary greatly. The total harmonisation of consumer rights in a single directive is, according to the Commission, the only way to guarantee the same level of protection for all consumers, to improve legal clarity and to stimulate cross-border trade. But this ambitious plan is proving controversial.

Minimum or full harmonisation?

Some MEPs believe that total harmonisation could result in a levelling-down of certain consumer rights. And BEUC, the European consumer watchdog, argues that giving identical rights to all consumers would not necessarily benefit those who already enjoy a high level of protection. For example, consumers in Cyprus, Finland or Luxembourg would end up with a shorter period of withdrawal rights than at present. However, consumers in other countries such as France, Poland and Italy would be better off, maintained a business representative who believed total harmonisation would be best.

Andreas Schwab (EPP, DE), the MEP who will steer the legislation through Parliament, believes that minimum harmonisation - where each state retains the right to have its own laws on this matter provided a minimum level of consumer protection, equal throughout the EU, is ensured - is not the right answer.  He believes that a whole series of definitions (notably the key term "consumer") and rights (distance selling, sales in the home, information, withdrawal) should be fully harmonised.  The degree of harmonisation needed for other rights, in particular guarantees, is more debatable, while contract clauses (such as the notion of "unfair terms") should not be harmonised.

The best method still to be found

Some MEPs who are completely opposed to full harmonisation of this legislation, including Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D, DE) and Heide Rühle (Greens/EFA, DE) are still convinced that linguistic, psychological and cultural barriers are bigger obstacles to cross-border trade (especially via the internet) than the legal fragmentation of the internal market.

But the Commission said on Tuesday that it does not plan to abandon the principle of completely harmonised rules. It sees this as an initial "island in a sea of confusion" arising from differences between national laws. According to Malcolm Harbour (ECR, UK), who chairs the Internal Market Committee, it remains to be seen "what the respective sizes of the island and the sea will be". Among the key remaining questions are the scope of the future directive and the choice of areas where full harmonisation would bring benefits for all operators, consumers and businesses.

The impact assessment already conducted on the draft legislation might provide answers to these questions but several MEPs and experts believe the documents submitted by the Commission are insufficient. As to the Council, the representative of the Swedish presidency acknowledged that the draft directive, which was unveiled as long ago as October 2008, is still at the preliminary stage and that the key issue, the optimum degree of harmonisation, has not yet been addressed.