BETA

Activities of Angel DZHAMBAZKI related to 2015/0288(COD)

Legal basis opinions (0)

Amendments (5)

Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
(26) In order to allow businesses to rely on a single set of rules across the Union, it is necessary to fully harmonise the period of time during which the burden of proof for the lack of conformity is reversed in favour of the consumer. Within the first two years, in order to benefit from the presumption of lack of conformity and provided that the lack of conformity became apparent within six months of delivery of the goods, the consumer should only establish that the good is not conforming, without needing to demonstrate that the lack of conformity actually existed at the relevant time for establishing conformity. In order to increase legal certainty in relation to available remedies for lack of conformity with the contract and in order to eliminate one of the major obstacles inhibiting the Digital Single Market, a fully harmonised order in which remedies can be exercised should be provided for. In particular, the consumer should enjoy a choice between repair or replacement as a first remedy which should help in maintaining the contractual relation and mutual trust. Moreover, enabling consumers to require repair should encourage a sustainable consumption and could contribute to a greater durability of products.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
(27) The consumer's choice between repair and replacement should only be limited where the option chosen would be technically difficult or economically disproportionate compared to the other option available, impossible or unlawful. For instance, it might be disproportionate to request the replacement of goods because of a minor scratch where this replacement would create significant costs while, at the same time, the scratch could easily be repaired.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
The consumer may choose between repair and replacement unless the option chosen would be impossible, unlawful or, compared to the other option, would impose costsIf a proportionate reduction of the price, according to Article 12, is not available, the consumer should first be proposed a repair of the good. When the repair is technically difficult, economically disproportionate, or impossible compared to the other option, the consumer should be given the possibility to choose full replacement onf the seller that would be disproportionatedefective good with one matching the description and conforming with the original contract at no additional costs to the consumer, taking into account all circumstances, including:
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In cases where repair and replacement are not possible, the consumers shall be entitled to choose a refund or a reduction of the price.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
A reduction of the price shall be available for minor defects which do not affect the use or functionality of the good. The reduction of price shall be proportionate to the decrease in the value of the goods which were received by the consumer compared to the value the goods would have if in conformity with the contract.
2017/03/07
Committee: JURI