No over-regulation in EU consumer legislation

A guarantee period of up to ten years, reversal of the burden of proof for twelve months and an immediate right of withdrawal in the case of deficiencies - even if they are minor:

these are features of the Swedish Presidency’s current compromise for the sale of consumer goods. This proposal is unacceptable. In October 2008 the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on consumer rights (COM 2008, 614). The Commission’s aim with this draft directive is to merge four consumer protection directives on doorstep selling(85/577), distance selling (97/7), unfair contract terms (93/13) and sale of consumer goods (99/44). However, the draft directive also comprises new consumer protection rights and further burdens on companies. This means that it is more than just a consolidation of existing law. For instance, as discussions in the Council working group currently stand, the purchaser would be given the right of immediate withdrawal within fifteen days in the event of a deficiency, even if insignificant. It is incomprehensible to us that the consumer can no longer be held to his recently expressed wish to acquire the product.

A general right of withdrawal, even if the deficiency is minimal, goes too far. Furthermore, the seller would bear the burden of proof that the product was free of defects on the passing of risk no longer for only six months but for twelve months. In some cases, the standard guarantee period of two years may be extended. Thought is presently being given to ten years, although the question of what period should be applicable for which products is still open. In our view, the situation should continue to be as stipulated in the existing directive on sale of consumer goods: a clear hierarchy of possible remedies, a two-year guarantee period and a sharing of the burden of proof between seller and buyer. In addition, a reset of the guarantee obligation in the event of subsequent deliveries should be deleted and not replaced. When the directive on sale of consumer goods 1999/44/EC was being drawn up, an appropriate equilibrium between consumer and supplier interests was found, and this should be preserved.

We support efforts to streamline EU consumer protection rights. A uniform definition of concepts in the individual directives is sensible and desirable. The potential of the internal market can be realised better through this harmonisation. But over-regulation in the area of consumer protection cannot be the result of a sensible balance of the interests of consumers and companies in Europe. In the form now under discussion, the draft directive would be detrimental for German industry. The proposed provisions would lead to considerable additional costs for companies - and ultimately to higher prices for consumers. Advantages which free movement in the internal market could offer will be cancelled out from the outset. In our view, the draft directive in its current shape is therefore unacceptable. You will find more information about consumer legislation here.