Inter-institutional negotiations are moving ahead slowly on the provision of digital content. The meeting of the co-legislators finished on 6 March with an agreement to meet up again for a fifth trialogue on 26 April. Integrated content and the degree of harmonisation remained the most controversial questions.
It should be recalled that the legislative proposal aims to facilitate the digital content business in areas such as online music and films, as well as apps and services such as Facebook and YouTube. It will completely harmonise a range of rules relating to digital content compliance, consumer procedures for seeking damages in the event of a contractual defect in digital content compliance, as well as certain aspects involving the right to terminate a long-term contract and the modification of digital content. The Council adopted its negotiating position on 8 June and the European Parliament did likewise on 21 November.
Slight progress…
The fourth meeting between representatives from Parliament, the Council and the Commission only allowed for slight progress to be made. Parliament indicated that it would be willing to demonstrate a certain openness on the question of damages and interest (a clause rather than an article) and the Council might do the same on the terminology used (trader rather than seller).
The co-legislators also made some progress on the issue of digital currencies (the Council wants to include this in the definition of "prices", while Parliament is calling for a more cautious approach, insofar as this concept has not been included in any European text). In the guise of a compromise, it is possible that the negotiators may introduce a reference in the clause on these currencies, which could include cheques and electronic vouchers.
… and blockages
For all other issues, the different parties were keen to highlight the fact that there had been a divergence of views. On the duration of the guarantee, for example, the Council is still appealing for minimum harmonisation while the Parliament is calling for maximum (article 3(9)). Both institutions agreed on setting this period at two years but the Council considers that the member states should be able to introduce or maintain more favourable provisions.
On the question of terminating long-term contracts (article 16), MEPs repeated their wish to introduce "proportionate compensation" for the trader relating to the benefits the latter has offered the consumer under the terms of the contract duration.
The different parties also clashed on the question of data: although both of them agree on including contracts involving content and services provided within the scope of the contract application opposing personal data, they do not agree on how this should be formulated. They will also need to clarify the relationship with the general regulation on data protection and the question of freely accessible software or software free of charge (Parliament wants to exclude it from the scope of application).
The negotiators also highlighted its position on the transposition deadline, which the Commission (supported by Parliament) was proposing to set out as two years in an effort to meet the expectations of the Council (which wanted a two year period, with an additional six months for adaptation). Parliament proposed a compromise focusing on an 18 month transition period and a six month period for adaptation, which the Council refused by suggesting a 24 month transposition period and three months for adaptation.
The next inter-institutional meeting has been arranged for 26 April. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)