Abstract
The four recommendations presented in this chapter are intended to provide a basis for further discussion, e.g., on possible solutions in relation to the shortcomings identified in the assessment in the previous chapter. Firstly, it is recommended to adopt an alternative framework to assess the unfairness of commercial practices. In the proposed unfairness test, all factors should be taken into account that are relevant to the Directive’s goals , such as the number of consumers that is likely to be affected by the practice, but also the degree to which other consumers are likely to benefit from the same practice and the possibility and cost for traders to prevent consumers from being deceived. Secondly, it is suggested to clarify the goals of the Directive and to provide better guidance as to the Directive’s application. Clarification of the goals and better guidance are required in order for the general clauses to be applied uniformly, be it under the current or under the proposed unfairness test. Thirdly, it is recommended to reconsider the degree of harmonisation . Taking into consideration the application of the consumer benchmarks at the national level, the Directive currently struggles to achieve uniform application. Moreover, full harmonisation comes at a cost and it is questionable to what extent full harmonisation can really be beneficial for cross-border trade. Fourthly and finally, this book provides a compelling argument against extending the scope of application of the consumer benchmarks to EU consumer law in general. It is questionable whether extending the scope of application of the consumer benchmarks would really improve consistent application of European consumer law. Yet most importantly, the extension of the scope of application of the Directive’s consumer benchmarks to EU consumer law in general would create the same problems as identified in the assessment in relation to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. This in and of itself is already sufficient reason to argue against such a development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
CJEU 16 July 1998, Case C-210/96, ECR 1998, p. I-4657 ( Gut Springenheide).
- 2.
See also the comparative overview in Chap. 8 of this book.
- 3.
See also H Collins, ‘EC regulation of unfair commercial practices’, in H Collins (ed), The forthcoming Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004) 4. See also J Nehf, ‘Misleading and unfair advertising’, in G Howells et al (eds), Handbook of research on international consumer law (Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar, 2010) 108.
- 4.
See in this sense also the second recommendation, presented in the next paragraph.
- 5.
Note that in the Directive, consumer confidence is related both to harmonisation (the consumer knowing that he or she will enjoy the same protection when shopping cross-border as when shopping domestically) and a high level of consumer protection. See also paragraph 11.3.3 of this book.
- 6.
See paragraph 11.4 of this book.
- 7.
F Gomez, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 22.
- 8.
R van den Bergh and M Lehmann, ‘Informationsökonomie und Verbraucherschutz im Wettbewerbs- und Warenzeichenrecht’ (1992) GRUR Int. 593.
- 9.
This is also relevant in relation to the costs of enforcement; from an efficiency perspective, it may be better in some cases not to intervene. See also F Gomez, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 7–8.
- 10.
See paragraph 11.4 of this book. See also F Gomez, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 8, and, on the relationship between the type of goods and the corrective force of the market, R van den Bergh and M Lehmann, ‘Informationsökonomie und Verbraucherschutz im Wettbewerbs- und Warenzeichenrecht’ (1992) GRUR Int. 591.
- 11.
This factor could also be taken into account in the assessment of (long-term) benefits, see Number 4 above, and may be a reason not to take into account social, cultural and linguistic factors, depending on the circumstances.
- 12.
Office of Fair Trading v Purely Creative Ltd Industries (2011) EWHC 106. See also the discussion in paragraph 6.5.3 of this book.
- 13.
See also J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006).
- 14.
The insights into consumer behaviour as presented in Chap. 9 of this book, in which the assumed behaviour of the average consumer is discussed from the point of view of the behavioural sciences, provide for a starting point in this respect. Also the overview of deceptive marketing tactics provided by in the book Deception in the marketplace by Boush, Friestad and Wright (2009), can prove to be very useful in this respect. See D Boush, M Friestad and P Wright, Deception in the marketplace: the psychology of deceptive persuasion and consumer self protection (New York/London, Routledge, 2009).
- 15.
This could also be (partly) done in the Directive itself.
- 16.
See, for example, the discussion on the nature of the average consumer benchmark (paragraph 4.2 of this book) and on the confusing statements in relation to vulnerable groups (paragraph 4.4 of this book).
- 17.
Note also that the Directive’s formal goals, apart from referring to a high level of consumer protection, do not go beyond the goal improve the smooth functioning of the internal market. Although in the EU context harmonisation, because of its legal basis, should necessarily be based on the internal market and/or consumer protection, that does not mean that the Directive cannot (and does not) also have other objectives. See on this issue also A Beater, ‘Zum Verhaltnis von europäischem und nationalem Wettbewerbsrecht – Überlegungen am Beispiel des Schutzes vor irreführender Werbung und des Verbraucherbegriffs’ (2000) GRUR Int. 963–974.
- 18.
Clarifying the rationale can also help address the question what can be seen as a ‘high level’ of consumer protection. Also on this issue the Directive currently does not provide any guidance.
- 19.
See on the legislative history of the consumer benchmarks in the Directive also paragraph 2.4 of this book.
- 20.
See CJEU 18 October 2012, Case C-428/11 ( Purely Creative) (not yet published in ECR).
- 21.
See also paragraph 2.2 of this book.
- 22.
See Directive 2011/83/EU.
- 23.
See also F Gomez, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 4, V Mak, ‘De grenzen van maximumharmonisatie in het Europese consumentenrecht’ (2011) Nederlands tijdschrift voor burgerlijk recht 558, M Faure, ‘Towards a maximum harmonization of consumer contract law?!?’ (2008) Maastricht journal of European and comparative law 445 and M Loos, ‘Harmonisatie van het consumentencontractenrecht’ (2011) Nederlands juristenblad 408.
- 24.
- 25.
See on the relationship between full harmonisation and ‘national’ consumer protection also V Mak, ‘De grenzen van maximumharmonisatie in het Europese consumentenrecht’ (2011) Nederlands tijdschrift voor burgerlijk recht 559 and M Faure, ‘Towards a maximum harmonization of consumer contract law?!?’ (2008) Maastricht journal of European and comparative law 441–442.
- 26.
It must be noted that this was at least partly already the case as a consequence of the free movement case law of the CJEU. The forced liberalisation of the German Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (see Chap. 5 of this book) is a good example of this.
- 27.
For example, tax and environmental laws, but also many consumer law measures, especially now that they have not been fully harmonised by the Consumer Rights Directive. See also M Faure, ‘Towards a maximum harmonization of consumer contract law?!?’ (2008) Maastricht journal of European and comparative law 437 and M Loos, ‘Harmonisatie van het consumentencontractenrecht’ (2011) Nederlands juristenblad 411.
- 28.
See paragraph 9.4.5 of this book.
- 29.
See, e.g., K. Cseres, Competition law and consumer protection (The Hague, Kluwer, 2005) 233, M Faure, ‘Towards a maximum harmonization of consumer contract law?!?’ 2008 Maastricht journal of European and comparative law 438, M Loos, ‘Harmonisatie van het consumentencontractenrecht’ (2011) Nederlands juristenblad 412 and T Wilhelmsson, ‘The abuse of the “confident consumer” as a justification for EC consumer law’ (2004) Journal of consumer policy 317.
- 30.
Suggestions for changes, e.g., by introducing a civil chamber of first instance, have been made by both M Hesselink, ‘An optional instrument on EU contract law: can it increase legal certainty and foster cross-border trade?’, in M Hesselink, A van Hoek and M. Loos (eds), Het Groenboek Europees contractenrecht: naar een optioneel instrument? (The Hague, Boom, 2011) 18 and M Loos, ‘Naar een optioneel instrument’, in M Hesselink, A van Hoek and M Loos (eds), Het Groenboek Europees contractenrecht: naar een optioneel instrument? (The Hague, Boom, 2011) 173–174.
- 31.
See V Mak, ‘Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of EU law in the proposal for the Consumer Rights Directive’ 2011 European review of private law 25 and V Mak, ‘De grenzen van maximumharmonisatie in het Europese consumentenrecht’ (2011) Nederlands tijdschrift voor burgerlijk recht 558.
- 32.
CJEU 30 April 2014, Case C-26/13 ( Kásler) (not yet published in ECR). See also paragraph 3.2.12 of this book.
- 33.
See, for example, the Dutch cases Rechtbank Utrecht (District Court Utrecht) 24 November 2004, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2004:AT7000, in which the average consumer benchmark is applied in the context of misrepresentation (dwaling, Article 6:228 of the Dutch Civil Code), and Rechtbank Maastricht (District Court Maastricht) 21 March 2002, ECLI:NL:RBMAA:2002:AE0776, in which the average consumer benchmark was applied in the context of product liability.
- 34.
Directive 1999/44/EC. See Loos 2014 (No. 30).
- 35.
See Article 2(2)(d) of the Consumer Sales Directive.
- 36.
Article 6(1) Directive 85/374/EEC.
- 37.
See Article 5 of the Consumer Rights Directive.
- 38.
See V Mak, ‘Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of EU law in the proposal for the Consumer Rights Directive’ (2011) European review of private law 25 and V. Mak, ‘De grenzen van maximumharmonisatie in het Europese consumentenrecht’, Nederlands tijdschrift voor burgerlijk recht 2011 558.
- 39.
See Chap. 3 of this book.
- 40.
See in this sense also Loos 2014, No. 30, in the context of the presumed expectations of the consumer in relation to non-conformity in consumer sales.
References
Beater, A, ‘Zum Verhaltnis von europäischem und nationalem Wettbewerbsrecht - Überlegungen am Beispiel des Schutzes vor irreführender Werbung und des Verbraucherbegriffs’ (2000) GRUR Int. 963.
Cseres, K, Competition law and consumer protection (The Hague, Kluwer, 2005).
Collins, H, ‘EC regulation of unfair commercial practices’, in H Collins (ed), The forthcoming Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2004) 1.
Faure, M, ‘Towards a maximum harmonization of consumer contract law?’ (2008) Maastricht journal of European and comparative law 433.
Gomez, F, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 4.
Hesselink, M, ‘An optional instrument on EU contract law: can it increase legal certainty and foster cross-border trade?’, in M Hesselink, A van Hoek and M. Loos (eds), Het Groenboek Europees contractenrecht: naar een optioneel instrument? (The Hague, Boom, 2011) 9–23
Kabel, J, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006).
Loos, M, ‘Harmonisatie van het consumentencontractenrecht' (2011) Nederlands juristenblad 408.
Loos, M, ‘Naar een optioneel instrument’, in M Hesselink, A van Hoek and M Loos (eds), Het Groenboek Europees contractenrecht: naar een optioneel instrument? (The Hague, Boom, 2011) 157.
Mak, V, ‘De grenzen van maximumharmonisatie in het Europese consumentenrecht' (2011) Nederlands tijdschrift voor burgerlijk recht 558.
Mak, V, ‘Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of EU law in the proposal for the Consumer Rights Directive’ (2011) European review of private law 25.
Nehf, J, ‘Misleading and unfair advertising’, in G Howells et al (eds), Handbook of research on international consumer law (Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar, 2010) 107.
Van den Bergh, R and Lehmann, M, ‘Informationsökonomie und Verbraucherschutz im Wettbewerbs- und Warenzeichenrecht' (1992) GRUR Int. 588.
Wilhelmsson, T, ‘The abuse of the “confident consumer” as a justification for EC consumer law’ (2004) Journal of consumer policy 317
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). Epilogue: Recommendations. In: The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13923-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13924-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)