On Tuesday evening 27 June, negotiators from the Council of the EU and European Parliament, failed to reach a compromise on unjustified geo-blocking on the Internet. The two parties stuck firmly to their respective positions and the dossier was referred to the Estonian Presidency. A fourth trialogue meeting is expected to take place in September, following a series of technical meetings that will attempt to assess the lie of the land.
It should be pointed out that the draft regulation obliges traders to make their goods and services accessible to all EU consumers, without discrimination in terms of access to prices, sales or payment conditions (see EUROPE 11558). It seeks to put an end to discrimination based on nationality, place of residency or place where customers are based for goods and services listed in the “Services” directive (Directive 2006/123/EC).
As previously indicated in our publication (see EUROPE 11816), the positions of the three institutions mainly diverge on the question of whether to include copyright protected non-audiovisual content in the scope of application (article 4), jurisdiction (article 1.5) and passive sales (article 6). An agreement, however, was highly unlikely on these different points, insofar as the Maltese Presidency did not have much room for manoeuvre to negotiate, following the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU’s (Coreper) dismissal on 23 June.
Botched attempts
During the meeting, Coreper proposed that the Council agreed to the compromise prepared by the Commission on the question of jurisdiction (namely, that the information and assistance provided by a trader to a customer after sales should be authorised but without this being covered by consumer law, on the condition of them relating to the contract). This question was not settled, however, whilst waiting for the solutions on the two other disputed points.
On the question of article 4, the European Parliament would like non-audio content protected by copyright to be included in the regulation’s scope as well, while the Council is opposed. During the meeting, the Parliament proposed a flexible timetable but this was not accepted by the Presidency, which found itself restricted by the Council’s mandate. On article 6, the Presidency argued for this article on passive sales to be removed, while the rapporteur called for its modalities to be discussed.
Discussions came to an end after two hours of talks. When she left the meeting, the European Parliament rapporteur, Ms Róża Thun (EPP, Poland), said that she was, “disappointed to observe that the ministers from the member states were not responding to EU citizens’ expectations. They defended protectionism and the interests of a small group”. She was particularly critical of the positions held by Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)