BETA


2008/2126(INI) European City Guide Report: Petition 45/2006

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead PETI BUSUTTIL Simon (icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE)
Committee Opinion IMCO WALLIS Diana (icon: ALDE ALDE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 227-p2, RoP 54, RoP 54-p4

Events

2009/04/22
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2008/12/16
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2008/12/16
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted, by 632 votes to 4 with 12 abstentions, a resolution on the Misleading Directory Companies report (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others). The own-initiative report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Simon BUSUTTIL (EPP-ED, MT) on behalf of the Committee on Petitions.

Members recall that Parliament has received more than 400 petitions from small businesses (reflecting only a fraction of their number) who claim to have fallen victim to misleading advertising by business-directory companies and to have suffered, in consequence, psychological stress, feelings of guilt, embarrassment, frustration and financial loss. These complaints reflect a widespread and concerted pattern of misleading business practices on the part of certain business-directory companies. Business practices complained of approaches being made, usually by mail, by a business-directory company to businesses inviting them to complete or update their business name and contact details and giving them the false impression that they will be listed in a business directory free of charge. Signatories later discover that they have, in fact, unintentionally signed up to a contract, normally binding them for a minimum of three years, to be listed in a business directory at a yearly charge of some EUR 1 000.

Most petitioners name the business directory known as "European City Guide" (the activities of which have been the subject of legal and administrative action) as well as other similar directories.

Parliament considers that the cross-border nature of this problem imposes a duty on the Community institutions to provide victims with an adequate remedy, such that the validity of contracts concluded on the basis of misleading advertising can be effectively contested, annulled or terminated, and that such victims may obtain reimbursement of the money paid by them.

MEPs urge victims to report cases of business scams to national authorities, and call on Member States to provide small and medium-sized enterprises with the know-how needed in order to enable them to file complaints with governmental and non-governmental authorities, and to set up and maintain a centralised database of these complaints.

MEPs regret that, despite the widespread nature of these practices, EU and national legislation does not appear to be adequate when it comes to providing a significant means of protection and an effective remedy, or is not being adequately enforced at national level. Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising, which applies to business-to-business transactions such as the one at issue in this case, appears to be either insufficient in terms of providing an effective remedy or inadequately enforced by Member States. The Commission is requested to report by December 2009 on the feasibility of amending Directive 2006/114/EC in such a way as to include a "black" or "grey" list of practices that are to be regarded as misleading. The Commission is also asked to step up its monitoring of the implementation of Directive 2006/114/EC, most notably in those Member States where misleading business-directory companies are known to be based, but in particular in Spain, where the business-directory company that is most often named by petitioners is established, and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia where a court judgment has been delivered against victims in a manner which calls into question the implementation of Directive 2006/114/EC in those countries.

MEPs also regret that Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market does not cover business-to-business transactions and that Member States appear reluctant to extend its scope. They request the Commission to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of extending the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC to cover business-to-business contracts, based on the Austrian model, in a way that specifically prohibits advertising in business directories unless prospective clients are unequivocally and by clear and graphic means informed that such advertisement is solely an offer for a contract against payment.

Parliament welcomes the measures taken by several Member States including Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom, but especially Austria, in attempting to prohibit misleading business directories.

It considers, however, that these efforts remain insufficient and that there is still a need for the coordination of control at an international level.

The European Commission is invited to:

- step up efforts, in full cooperation with national and European business representative organisations, to raise awareness of this problem so that more people are informed and empowered to avoid misleading advertising which can lure them into unwanted advertising contracts;

- address the problem of business scams in the context of its "Small Business Act for Europe" initiative, and to engage with the Enterprise Europe Network, the SOLVIT Network and relevant DG portals;

- develop best-practice guidelines for national enforcement agencies which may be followed when cases of misleading advertising are brought to their attention;

- pursue international cooperation with third countries and with the competent international organisations so that misleading business-directory companies based in third countries do not cause harm to businesses based in the EU.

Member States are urged to ensure that victims of misleading advertising have a clearly identifiable national authority to which they can make a complaint and from which they can seek a remedy even in cases where the victims of misleading advertising are businesses.

Lastly, Parliament welcomes the efforts made by business organisations to raise awareness among their members. It expresses concern that some of these organisations have consequently been pursued through the courts by the misleading business-directory companies specified in their awareness-raising activities on the basis of alleged defamation or similar accusations.

Documents
2008/12/16
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2008/12/15
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2008/11/13
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2008/11/13
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2008/11/06
   EP - Vote in committee
Details

The Committee on Petitions adopted the own-initiative report by Simon BUSUTTIL (EPP-ED, MT) on the Misleading Directory Companies report (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others).

Parliament has received more than 400 petitions from small businesses (reflecting only a fraction of their number) who claim to have fallen victim to misleading advertising by business-directory companies and to have suffered, in consequence, psychological stress, feelings of guilt, embarrassment, frustration and financial loss. These complaints reflect a widespread and concerted pattern of misleading business practices on the part of certain business-directory companies. B usiness practices complained of approaches being made, usually by mail, by a business-directory company to businesses inviting them to complete or update their business name and contact details and giving them the false impression that they will be listed in a business directory free of charge. Signatories later discover that they have, in fact, unintentionally signed up to a contract, normally binding them for a minimum of three years, to be listed in a business directory at a yearly charge of some EUR 1 000.

Most petitioners name the business directory known as “European City Guide” (the activities of which have been the subject of legal and administrative action) as well as other similar directories.

The Petitions Committee considers that the cross-border nature of this problem imposes a duty on the Community institutions to provide an adequate remedy to victims, such that the validity of contracts concluded on the basis of misleading advertising can be effectively contested, annulled or terminated, and that such victims may obtain reimbursement of the money paid by them.

MEPs urge victims to report cases of business scams to national authorities, and call on Member States to provide small and medium-sized enterprises with the know-how needed in order to enable them to file complaints with governmental and non-governmental authorities, and to set up and maintain a centralised database of these complaints.

MEPs regret that, despite the widespread nature of these practices, EU and national legislation does not appear to be adequate when it comes to providing a significant means of protection and an effective remedy, or is not being adequately enforced at national level.

The Commission is requested to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of amending Directive 2006/114/EC in such a way as to include a “black” or “grey” list of practices that are to be regarded as misleading.

MEPs regret that Directive 2005/29/EC does not cover business-to-business transactions and that Member States appear reluctant to extend its scope. They request the Commission to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of extending the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC to cover business-to-business contracts.

The committee welcomes the measures taken by several Member States including Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom, but especially Austria, in attempting to prohibit misleading business directories.

It considers, however, that these efforts remain insufficient and that there is still a need for the coordination of control at an international level.

The European Commission is invited to:

step up their efforts, in full cooperation with national and European business representative organisations, to raise awareness of this problem so that more people are informed and empowered to avoid misleading advertising which can lure them into unwanted advertising contracts; address the problem of business scams in the context of its “Small Business Act for Europe” initiative, and to engage with the Enterprise Europe Network, the SOLVIT Network; develop best-practice guidelines for national enforcement agencies which may be followed when cases of misleading advertising are brought to their attention; pursue international cooperation with third countries and with the competent international organisations so that misleading business-directory companies based in third countries do not cause harm to businesses based in the European Union.

Lastly, Member States are urged to ensure that victims of misleading advertising have a clearly identifiable national authority to which they can make a complaint and from which they can seek a remedy even in cases, such as these, where the victims of misleading advertising are businesses.

2008/10/17
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2008/10/07
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2008/09/23
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2008/05/22
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2008/05/06
   EP - WALLIS Diana (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2008/04/02
   EP - BUSUTTIL Simon (PPE-DE) appointed as rapporteur in PETI

Documents

Activities

Votes

Rapport Busuttil A6-0446/2008 - résolution #

2008/12/16 Outcome: +: 632, 0: 12, -: 4
DE GB FR IT ES PL RO NL PT BE HU EL CZ SE FI AT BG LT SK DK IE LV SI EE LU CY MT
Total
83
68
66
59
45
43
21
23
20
19
19
22
18
15
14
14
13
13
13
12
12
9
7
6
6
6
2
icon: PPE-DE PPE-DE
243
2

Denmark PPE-DE

1

Estonia PPE-DE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE-DE

3

Malta PPE-DE

2
icon: PSE PSE
176

Czechia PSE

2

Lithuania PSE

2

Slovakia PSE

2

Ireland PSE

1

Slovenia PSE

For (1)

1

Estonia PSE

3

Luxembourg PSE

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
85

Spain ALDE

1

Hungary ALDE

1

Sweden ALDE

2

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

2

Estonia ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Cyprus ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
38

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

5

Italy Verts/ALE

2

Spain Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Sweden Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: UEN UEN
37

Lithuania UEN

2

Denmark UEN

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
33

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

France GUE/NGL

2

Spain GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: NI NI
23

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

7

Italy NI

2

Poland NI

1

Czechia NI

1

Austria NI

For (1)

1
icon: IND/DEM IND/DEM
13

United Kingdom IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Netherlands IND/DEM

2

Sweden IND/DEM

2

Denmark IND/DEM

For (1)

1

Ireland IND/DEM

For (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
50 2008/2126(INI)
2008/07/17 IMCO 16 amendments...
source: PE-409.668
2008/10/17 PETI 34 amendments...
source: PE-414.367

History

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

docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE408.026
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE408.026
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE407.827&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE407.827&secondRef=02
docs/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE414.367
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE414.367
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0446_EN.html
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0446_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2008-11-13T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0446_EN.html title: A6-0446/2008
events/2
date
2008-11-13T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0446_EN.html title: A6-0446/2008
events/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081215&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20081215&type=CRE
events/5
date
2008-12-16T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0608_EN.html title: T6-0608/2008
summary
events/5
date
2008-12-16T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0608_EN.html title: T6-0608/2008
summary
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 227-p2
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure EP 052-p4
procedure/legal_basis/2
Rules of Procedure EP 54-p4
procedure/legal_basis/2
Rules of Procedure EP 216-p2
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Petitions
committee
PETI
rapporteur
name: BUSUTTIL Simon date: 2008-04-02T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Petitions
committee
PETI
date
2008-04-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BUSUTTIL Simon group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
rapporteur
name: WALLIS Diana date: 2008-05-06T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2008-05-06T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WALLIS Diana group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-446&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0446_EN.html
docs/4/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-446&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0446_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-608
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0608_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2008-05-22T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2008-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana body: EP responsible: True committee: PETI date: 2008-04-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: BUSUTTIL Simon
  • date: 2008-11-06T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2008-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana body: EP responsible: True committee: PETI date: 2008-04-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: BUSUTTIL Simon type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2008-11-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-446&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0446/2008 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2008-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081215&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16338&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-608 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0608/2008 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union commissioner: MCCREEVY Charlie
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Petitions
committee
PETI
date
2008-04-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BUSUTTIL Simon group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats abbr: PPE-DE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
IMCO
date
2008-05-06T00:00:00
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Internal Market and Consumer Protection
committee
IMCO
date
2008-05-06T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: WALLIS Diana group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
PETI
date
2008-04-02T00:00:00
committee_full
Petitions
rapporteur
group: PPE-DE name: BUSUTTIL Simon
docs
  • date: 2008-09-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE408.026 title: PE408.026 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2008-10-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE407.827&secondRef=02 title: PE407.827 committee: IMCO type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2008-10-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE414.367 title: PE414.367 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2008-11-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-446&language=EN title: A6-0446/2008 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP
  • date: 2009-04-22T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=16338&j=0&l=en title: SP(2009)988 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2008-05-22T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2008-11-06T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary: The Committee on Petitions adopted the own-initiative report by Simon BUSUTTIL (EPP-ED, MT) on the Misleading Directory Companies report (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others). Parliament has received more than 400 petitions from small businesses (reflecting only a fraction of their number) who claim to have fallen victim to misleading advertising by business-directory companies and to have suffered, in consequence, psychological stress, feelings of guilt, embarrassment, frustration and financial loss. These complaints reflect a widespread and concerted pattern of misleading business practices on the part of certain business-directory companies. B usiness practices complained of approaches being made, usually by mail, by a business-directory company to businesses inviting them to complete or update their business name and contact details and giving them the false impression that they will be listed in a business directory free of charge. Signatories later discover that they have, in fact, unintentionally signed up to a contract, normally binding them for a minimum of three years, to be listed in a business directory at a yearly charge of some EUR 1 000. Most petitioners name the business directory known as “European City Guide” (the activities of which have been the subject of legal and administrative action) as well as other similar directories. The Petitions Committee considers that the cross-border nature of this problem imposes a duty on the Community institutions to provide an adequate remedy to victims, such that the validity of contracts concluded on the basis of misleading advertising can be effectively contested, annulled or terminated, and that such victims may obtain reimbursement of the money paid by them. MEPs urge victims to report cases of business scams to national authorities, and call on Member States to provide small and medium-sized enterprises with the know-how needed in order to enable them to file complaints with governmental and non-governmental authorities, and to set up and maintain a centralised database of these complaints. MEPs regret that, despite the widespread nature of these practices, EU and national legislation does not appear to be adequate when it comes to providing a significant means of protection and an effective remedy, or is not being adequately enforced at national level. The Commission is requested to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of amending Directive 2006/114/EC in such a way as to include a “black” or “grey” list of practices that are to be regarded as misleading. MEPs regret that Directive 2005/29/EC does not cover business-to-business transactions and that Member States appear reluctant to extend its scope. They request the Commission to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of extending the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC to cover business-to-business contracts. The committee welcomes the measures taken by several Member States including Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom, but especially Austria, in attempting to prohibit misleading business directories. It considers, however, that these efforts remain insufficient and that there is still a need for the coordination of control at an international level. The European Commission is invited to: step up their efforts, in full cooperation with national and European business representative organisations, to raise awareness of this problem so that more people are informed and empowered to avoid misleading advertising which can lure them into unwanted advertising contracts; address the problem of business scams in the context of its “Small Business Act for Europe” initiative, and to engage with the Enterprise Europe Network, the SOLVIT Network; develop best-practice guidelines for national enforcement agencies which may be followed when cases of misleading advertising are brought to their attention; pursue international cooperation with third countries and with the competent international organisations so that misleading business-directory companies based in third countries do not cause harm to businesses based in the European Union. Lastly, Member States are urged to ensure that victims of misleading advertising have a clearly identifiable national authority to which they can make a complaint and from which they can seek a remedy even in cases, such as these, where the victims of misleading advertising are businesses.
  • date: 2008-11-13T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-446&language=EN title: A6-0446/2008
  • date: 2008-12-15T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081215&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-12-16T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16338&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2008-12-16T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-608 title: T6-0608/2008 summary: The European Parliament adopted, by 632 votes to 4 with 12 abstentions, a resolution on the Misleading Directory Companies report (Petitions 0045/2006, 1476/2006, 0079/2003, 0819/2003, 1010/2005, 0052/2007, 0306/2007, 0444/2007, 0562/2007 and others). The own-initiative report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Simon BUSUTTIL (EPP-ED, MT) on behalf of the Committee on Petitions. Members recall that Parliament has received more than 400 petitions from small businesses (reflecting only a fraction of their number) who claim to have fallen victim to misleading advertising by business-directory companies and to have suffered, in consequence, psychological stress, feelings of guilt, embarrassment, frustration and financial loss. These complaints reflect a widespread and concerted pattern of misleading business practices on the part of certain business-directory companies. Business practices complained of approaches being made, usually by mail, by a business-directory company to businesses inviting them to complete or update their business name and contact details and giving them the false impression that they will be listed in a business directory free of charge. Signatories later discover that they have, in fact, unintentionally signed up to a contract, normally binding them for a minimum of three years, to be listed in a business directory at a yearly charge of some EUR 1 000. Most petitioners name the business directory known as "European City Guide" (the activities of which have been the subject of legal and administrative action) as well as other similar directories. Parliament considers that the cross-border nature of this problem imposes a duty on the Community institutions to provide victims with an adequate remedy, such that the validity of contracts concluded on the basis of misleading advertising can be effectively contested, annulled or terminated, and that such victims may obtain reimbursement of the money paid by them. MEPs urge victims to report cases of business scams to national authorities, and call on Member States to provide small and medium-sized enterprises with the know-how needed in order to enable them to file complaints with governmental and non-governmental authorities, and to set up and maintain a centralised database of these complaints. MEPs regret that, despite the widespread nature of these practices, EU and national legislation does not appear to be adequate when it comes to providing a significant means of protection and an effective remedy, or is not being adequately enforced at national level. Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising, which applies to business-to-business transactions such as the one at issue in this case, appears to be either insufficient in terms of providing an effective remedy or inadequately enforced by Member States. The Commission is requested to report by December 2009 on the feasibility of amending Directive 2006/114/EC in such a way as to include a "black" or "grey" list of practices that are to be regarded as misleading. The Commission is also asked to step up its monitoring of the implementation of Directive 2006/114/EC, most notably in those Member States where misleading business-directory companies are known to be based, but in particular in Spain, where the business-directory company that is most often named by petitioners is established, and in the Czech Republic and Slovakia where a court judgment has been delivered against victims in a manner which calls into question the implementation of Directive 2006/114/EC in those countries. MEPs also regret that Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market does not cover business-to-business transactions and that Member States appear reluctant to extend its scope. They request the Commission to report by December 2009 on the feasibility and possible consequences of extending the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC to cover business-to-business contracts, based on the Austrian model, in a way that specifically prohibits advertising in business directories unless prospective clients are unequivocally and by clear and graphic means informed that such advertisement is solely an offer for a contract against payment. Parliament welcomes the measures taken by several Member States including Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom, but especially Austria, in attempting to prohibit misleading business directories. It considers, however, that these efforts remain insufficient and that there is still a need for the coordination of control at an international level. The European Commission is invited to: - step up efforts, in full cooperation with national and European business representative organisations, to raise awareness of this problem so that more people are informed and empowered to avoid misleading advertising which can lure them into unwanted advertising contracts; - address the problem of business scams in the context of its "Small Business Act for Europe" initiative, and to engage with the Enterprise Europe Network, the SOLVIT Network and relevant DG portals; - develop best-practice guidelines for national enforcement agencies which may be followed when cases of misleading advertising are brought to their attention; - pursue international cooperation with third countries and with the competent international organisations so that misleading business-directory companies based in third countries do not cause harm to businesses based in the EU. Member States are urged to ensure that victims of misleading advertising have a clearly identifiable national authority to which they can make a complaint and from which they can seek a remedy even in cases where the victims of misleading advertising are businesses. Lastly, Parliament welcomes the efforts made by business organisations to raise awareness among their members. It expresses concern that some of these organisations have consequently been pursued through the courts by the misleading business-directory companies specified in their awareness-raising activities on the basis of alleged defamation or similar accusations.
  • date: 2008-12-16T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services commissioner: MCCREEVY Charlie
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
PETI/6/62873
New
  • PETI/6/62873
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure EP 052-p4
procedure/legal_basis/1
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052-p2
procedure/legal_basis/2
Rules of Procedure EP 216-p2
procedure/legal_basis/2
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 216-p2
procedure/subject
Old
  • 1.20.03 Right of petition
  • 4.60.02 Consumer information, advertising, labelling
  • 4.60.06 Consumers' economic and legal interests
New
1.20.03
Right of petition
4.60.02
Consumer information, advertising, labelling
4.60.06
Consumers' economic and legal interests
activities
  • date: 2008-05-22T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2008-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana body: EP responsible: True committee: PETI date: 2008-04-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: BUSUTTIL Simon
  • date: 2008-11-06T00:00:00 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2008-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana body: EP responsible: True committee: PETI date: 2008-04-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: BUSUTTIL Simon type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 2008-11-13T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-446&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A6-0446/2008 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2008-12-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20081215&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2008-12-16T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=16338&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-608 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T6-0608/2008 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: IMCO date: 2008-05-06T00:00:00 committee_full: Internal Market and Consumer Protection rapporteur: group: ALDE name: WALLIS Diana
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: PETI date: 2008-04-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: PPE-DE name: BUSUTTIL Simon
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/ title: Internal Market and Services commissioner: MCCREEVY Charlie
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
PETI/6/62873
reference
2008/2126(INI)
title
European City Guide Report: Petition 45/2006
legal_basis
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Initiative
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject