Activites

• 1998/06/11 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1998/27
  • OJ L 166 11.06.1998, p. 0051
• 1998/05/19 Final act signed
• 1998/05/19 End of procedure in Parliament
• #2084
• 1998/04/23 Council Meeting
• 1998/03/12 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0144/1998 summary

    In adopting the recommendation for second reading by Mr Josep VERDE I ALDEA (PSE, Esp), the European Parliament approved the common position unamended. The Council had accepted many of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading. �

• 1998/03/11 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    Stressing the innovative aspect of this directive which would regulate, for the first time, the right of consumer associations to bring actions in any EU country, the rapporteur expressed his appreciation of the Council’s work which had improved the technical aspect of the directive in question. As a result, he was against the amendments tabled on those professional categories not falling within the sphere of consumers. Commissioner Cresson said that the Commission would accept the conclusions of the Committee on Legal Affairs which had already rejected the last eight amendments. In particular, with regard to Amendments Nos 2, 4, 6 and 7 – establishing a link between national law and the capacity of qualified entities to act – Mrs Cresson considered that these represented a retreat from the common position, particularly as they would call into question the very purpose of the directive, namely the mutual recognition of entities qualified to bring actions.

• 1998/02/25 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0062/1998
• 1997/11/20 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2037
• 1997/10/30 Council Meeting
  • 07497/1/1997 summary

    The common position largely takes over the Commission's amended proposal and hence Parliament's amendments accepted by the Commission. The most important point of divergence between the amended proposal and the common position concerns the scope of the proposed Directive, to the extent that the reference to companies' interests has been deleted; instead the common position focuses exclusively on protecting the collective interests of consumers. The Council has made provision for the collective interests of persons exercising a commercial, industrial, craft or professional activity to be re-examined no later than five years after the entry into force of the Directive. A further difference which should be mentioned is that the common position has not specifically taken into account the possibility for European organizations and/or federations to act as qualified entities. The common position also stipulates the scope of intra-Community infringements: a simplification has been introduced by deleting the initially proposed text concerning the document certifying the right of a qualified entity to bring proceedings before competent courts or authorities. According to the common position, it is sufficient for the Commission, once the Member States have informed it of the name and purpose of their national qualified entities, to draw up a list of such entities, which will be published in the Official Journal. The courts and administrative bodies must accept this list as proof of the legal capacity of the qualified entity without prejudice to their right to examine whether the purpose of the qualified entity justifies its taking action in a specific case. Another point to note is that the question of the law applicable is covered with reference to private international law. The applicable law should therefore normally be either the law of the Member State where the infringement originated or the law of the Member State where it has its effects. Finally, the Council would like the Directive to be implemented within a period of 30 months. �

• #1997
• 1997/04/10 Council Meeting
• 1996/12/23 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1996)0725 summary

    The modified proposal for a Directive on injunctions for protection of consumers' interests accepts in full or in part 17 of the 20 amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading. In the light of the EP amendments, the main changes made are as follows: - since the law applying to the substance of a dispute comprises provisions transposing one of the Directives listed in the Annex, it should be applied in full; - setting of a time limit of three weeks after which, should the national qualified entity having territorial jurisdiction fail to respond, the applicant should be entitled to bring an action before the competent authority without further notice; - the purpose of the Directive is to approximate the rules designed to protect the collective interests of consumers and persons exercising a commercial, industrial or craft activity, and the interests of the public at large, against infringements harmful to consumers' interests; - with regard to actions for an injunction, the nature of the payment and the beneficiary will be determined by the national law applicable; - the distinction between the concept of being qualified to act and having an interest in doing so is clarified. The Directive introduces mutual recognition of the qualification for action ('qualified entities') but the interest in bringing an action is governed by national law and must be assessed separately in each case by the judge before whom the action is brought; - the Member States will apply the criteria laid down by their national law to any organization existing in their territories, irrespective of the national, transnational or European nature of such organizations/federations; - the rules governing prior notification must enable the action to be brought as quickly as possible, since it is done under summary procedure. �

• #1969
• 1996/11/25 Council Meeting
  • 1969
• 1996/11/14 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0596/1996 summary

    Parliament adopted the report by Mr Josep VERDE I ALDEA (PSE, E) on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests. Parliament called for a harmonization (whereas the Commission proposed a mere coordination) of rules with regard to protection of the collective interests of consumers, of persons exercising a commercial, industrial or craft activity and those of the public at large, against certain unlawful practices. Moreover, Member States should designate at national level the bodies and/or organizations qualified for the purposes of the Directive, including Europe-wide bodies or organizations established within their territory. Finally, where the Member States have established that there should be prior intervention by a national qualified entity with a view to initiating action, a deadline of not more than 20 working days should be set, to start upon presentation of the application for intervention to the competent body. After which, should the latter body fail to respond, the applicant would be entitled to bring an action before the competent authority without further notice. �

• 1996/11/13 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mr Verde i Aldea (PSE, E), underlined the importance of the said proposal for a directive, which opened up new possibilities for consumers by introducing mutual recognition for consumer protection associations in each Member State. In this regard, the rapporteur also wanted to see similar organisations at European level being given access to the same legal system and added that it would be appropriate to put in place a set of arrangements for resolving disputes by amicable agreement, for example by means of arbitration. Finally, he called for the third pillar, namely justice and internal security, to be adopted into the Community system so that every citizen, and not just consumers, would be given proper access to the judicial system within the single market. Commissioner Bonino said that she could accept 20 of the 25 amendments tabled by Parliament; this meant that she rejected Amendments Nos 5, 12, 6, 19 and 25 (the last three because the concept of organising consumers at European level could not easily be translated into practice, nor was it compatible with the principle of proportionality).

• 1996/10/29 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0354/1996
• #1917
• 1996/04/23 Council Meeting
  • 1917
• 1996/02/28 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1996/01/24 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1995)0712 summary

    OBJECTIVE: to facilitate consumers' access to justice via their representatives by coordinating national provisions on actions for injunction of practices which are contrary to Community consumer law. SUBSTANCE: the proposed action is based on the existence, at national level, of entities qualified to protect the interests of consumers which have occasion to bring injunction proceedings before the national courts of the Member States on account of practices which violate Community law. The proposal for a Directive lays down minimum conditions for mutual recognition of these qualified entities to enable them to act in cross-border situations. Where an unlawful practice has effects in Member State A but originates in Member State B, the qualified entity in country A will be able either to authorize the qualified entity in country B to institute proceedings before the court or competent authority of that country, or else itself to take action before that court or authority. The scope of the Directive is limited to practices coming within the remit of national laws that have been harmonized under other Community directives, namely those concerning misleading advertising, consumer credit, unfair terms in contracts, door-to-door selling, package travel and timeshares. Granting the power of action to the qualified entities of the Member States, establishing criteria for the entities' representativeness and laying down procedural details will in every case be matters for the national authorities. �

• 1994/09/30 Additional information

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1995)0712
• Debate in Council: 1917
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0354/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0596/1996
• Debate in Council: 1969
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1996)0725
• Council position published: 07497/1/1997
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0062/1998
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0144/1998
• : Directive 1998/27
• : OJ L 166 11.06.1998, p. 0051

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)