Belgian Presidency paves way for consumer rights deal

"The general approach on the Consumer Rights Directive endorsed by ministers at the Competitiveness Council is a very important step forward. I would like to congratulate the Belgian Presidency and notably Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne for his skilful negotiations," EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said after the ministers' meeting.

"This will allow the European Parliament to take this important file forward in early 2011. My objective is to strengthen both the single market's functioning and the rights that consumers enjoy in Europe. I also want to ensure that businesses can benefit from a level-playing field. I am confident that we can achieve this in the course of next year," Reding added.

"If the EU seeks a single market for Europeans, a modern system of consumer rights should be its basis, thereby empowering consumers. [Friday] is a missed opportunity. Legislators negotiated lengthily to give this law good value, but what [was] put before the Council represents a significant U-turn," said Monique Goyens, director-general of EU consumer organisation BEUC.

"The European Parliament has its say next month and we hope their approach is closer to the needs of European consumers," Goyens said.

UK consumer organisation Which? wrote to the British government warning that the Belgian EU Presidency had failed to properly consider unforeseen circumstances in its rush to table a compromise text.

"We think the latest proposal […] represents little, if any, benefit in terms of the overall level of consumer protection in the UK," it warned.

The latest version of the Consumer Rights Directive risks harming small entrepreneurs who tend to work often outside their business premises, according to UEAPME, the European craft and SME employers' organisation.

The most recent draft stipulates that all contracts negotiated outside the trader's shop should be subject to a 14-day withdrawal period and to onerous information requirements, even when the business contact was established by the consumer.

"This would cause excessive burdens for SMEs and craftsmen, who frequently need to visit consumers' homes to be able to make an offer," according to UEAPME, which wants the Council "to insert a distinction between solicited and unsolicited contracts in the directive" and warns that the current text is "incompatible with the 'Think Small First' principle and may lead to less choice, higher prices and longer delivery times for consumers.

"While nobody questions the necessity to protect consumers' rights, the latest draft of the directive is a step too far. Small entrepreneurs and craftsmen, who must visit consumers' homes to assess what needs to be done and make an offer, would be subject to heavy information requirements on aspects that are impossible to predict at such an early stage, for instance the exact cost breakdown and a detailed description of how the work will be performed," said UEAPME Enterprise Policy Director Luc Hendrickx.

"To add insult to injury, they would also see their contracts hanging by a thread for two weeks after the signature, even if their call was solicited by customer in the first place. This is imbalanced and unacceptable," Hendrickx said.  

"Under the current text, small entrepreneurs and craftsmen would be discouraged from visiting consumers' homes. They would begin charging more for their services to cover the costs associated with 'off premises contracts', and most would only start working on the order after the two weeks withdrawal period to minimise the risks. Consumers would be worse off due to less choice, higher prices and longer delivery times. We hope that the Council will understand what is at stake and insert a clear distinction between solicited and unsolicited contracts to avoid this scenario," he concluded.