Progress was made in Brussels on Monday 20 February towards better protecting consumer rights against cross-border and online scams in the internal market and thus increasing the public’s confidence in the digital single market.
EU competitiveness ministers agreed, by qualified majority, on a general approach on the draft EU regulation seeking to modernise and strengthen cooperation among national authorities responsible for enforcement of consumer protection laws (see EUROPE 11727).
Everyone hailed the work done by the Dutch, Slovak and, above all, Maltese Presidencies of the Council. The Maltese Presidency has managed successfully to conclude long discussions on this piece of legislation that was presented in May 2016 as part of the third package on the digital single market (see EUROPE 11558).
The text agreed is a “fair and balanced compromise”, said Christian Cardona, Maltese Economy and Small Business Minister, who chaired the meeting. “Significant amendments have been made to address the requests of the various delegations, the powers of national authorities have been restructured, mutual assistance and cooperation have been clarified. The compromise text is a good starting point for negotiations with the Parliament. It sends a clear political message to business, underlining the importance of the enforcement of European consumer law in delivering a robust single market”, he told the cameras.
Essentially, the agreed text strengthens the powers of national consumer protection authorities, granting them a number of minimum investigation and enforcement powers, for example, to order the closure of websites hosting scams and to request information from service providers (Article 8).
The agreement also provides for coordinated action to deal with infringements committed in several member states, making possible large-scale investigations and stopping widespread infringements across the EU. The Commission will play a coordination role.
However, for widespread infringements, the use of implementing acts, the surveillance mechanism and the imposition of sanctions or payment of compensation have all been removed, to the regret of the European Commission.
Austria is, on the other hand, pleased at the changes reducing implementing acts in number from fifteen to one. It still has difficulties, however, with Article 8 which “harms interests protected by fundamental rights”. “Some powers devolved to national authorities are judicial responsibilities. Are they not excessive? When are powers enforcement powers? What are the infringements that can justify these powers? What about the administrative burden?” asked the Austrian minister, expressing the hope that “these outstanding issues will be resolved in the trialogues”.
European Justice and Consumers Commissioner Vera Jourova opined that the Council's general approach is a positive step but still more can be achieved for consumer protection everywhere in the EU.
She said that giving national competent authorities a uniform system of powers to enforce consumer rights is essential in the single market so that consumers can benefit fully from the potential of the digital single market and have more confidence in that market. The text will ensure the same level of protection for consumers throughout the EU and the Commission will be required to act when infringements are major, she underlined.
She regretted that “certain tools” had “disappeared” from the text, such as the power to seek compensation. She said that, in the Volkswagen case, she had received thousands of emails calling for swift, tangible results. The VW scandal, she went on, had shown clearly that the Commission was not sufficiently well equipped. She said she would like to be able to tell citizens that the Commission is with them and will take action. The text, she argued, does not maintain the Commission’s role in launching implementing acts for cross-Europe infringements. That, she underlined, had been a pillar of the proposal, and she pointed out that the Commission had been successful, through dialogue, in obtaining commitments from multinational car hire firms (see EUROPE 11707).
Portugal, which would have liked to have seen a “more central and active role” for the Commission, ultimately gave its support to the compromise.
Jourova expressed confidence that “effective solutions can be found in the trialogue negotiations” with the European Parliament and said she was ready to hold discussions with countries which had any specific issues because of their domestic laws. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)