Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 5))

Abstract

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive was adopted in 2005 and fully harmonises unfair commercial practices law in Europe. It aims to achieve a high level of consumer protection, to smoothen the functioning of the internal market and to increase competition in the market as such. The main consumer benchmark in the Directive is that of the average consumer, introduced by the CJEU in 1998. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive introduced two alternative benchmarks to that of the average consumer, i.e., the target group benchmark and the vulnerable group benchmark. The latter was introduced specifically to take away the criticism that the Directive offered insufficient protection to consumers. Both the target group benchmark and the vulnerable group benchmark aim to offer additional protection to more vulnerable groups. Under what circumstances the two alternative benchmarks can be applied, remains somewhat unclear on the basis of the Directive. However, the requirements for their application emphasise that they remain exceptions to the main benchmark of the Directive, i.e., the average consumer benchmark.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’). OJ 2005 L 149/22. See on the legal basis of the Directive I Eriksson and U Öberg, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in context’, in S Weatherill and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart, 2007) 91–94 and G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 12–13.

  2. 2.

    G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 50.

  3. 3.

    See similarly G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 1.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, the Consumer Sales Directive (1994/44/EC), the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (2006/114/EC) and the Unfair Terms Directive (1993/13/EEC). Note that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is, however, not the first full harmonisation instrument. For example, the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) and the E-commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) are also full harmonisation Directives.

  5. 5.

    Article 2(d). The broad scope of application is also emphasised in the case law on the Directive. See CJEU 23 April 2009, Joined cases C-261/07 and C-299/07, ECR 2009, p. I-2949 ( VTB-VAB v Total/ Galatea v Sonoma) and CJEU 14 January 2010, Case C-304/08, ECR 2010, p. I-217 ( Plus).

  6. 6.

    See also U Bernitz, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: its scope, ambitions and relation to the law of unfair competition’, in S Weatherill and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart 2007) 35 and C Gielen (ed), Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht (Deventer, Kluwer, 2011) 617–618.

  7. 7.

    G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 53.

  8. 8.

    This includes, for example, the decision to go or not to go to a store, see CJEU 19 December 2013, Case C-281/12 ( Trento Sviluppo) (not yet published in ECR).

  9. 9.

    Preamble to the Directive, Recital 7. See also G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 59–62.

  10. 10.

    Article 3 of the Directive.

  11. 11.

    See Article 3(9) of the Directive. See also the Preamble to the Directive, Recital 9. See on the topic of financial services in relation to unfair commercial practices also P Rott, ‘A plea for special treatment of financial services in unfair commercial practices law’ (2013) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und Verbraucherrecht/Journal of European consumer and market law 61.

  12. 12.

    Professional diligence is defined in Article 2(h) of the Directive as ‘the standard of special skill and care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers, commensurate with honest market practice and/or the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity’.

  13. 13.

    CJEU 19 December 2013, Case C-281/12 ( Trento Sviluppo) (not yet published in ECR). This means, amongst others, that providing false information in the sense of Article 6(1) of the Directive is not misleading per se.

  14. 14.

    See G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 217–218.

  15. 15.

    On the enforcement practice in Member States, see G de Cristofaro, ‘Die zivilrechtlichen Folgen des Verstoßes gegen das Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken: eine vergleichende Analyse der Lösungen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten’ (2010) GRUR Int. 1017–1025. See also the EU online database on application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in Member States.

  16. 16.

    See in this sense also, for example, J Trzaskowski, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013) 2. This approach is in line with, for example, the previously existing German Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (UWG).

  17. 17.

    SEC (2009) 1666.

  18. 18.

    It must be noted, though, that no update has been published so far (last accessed 8 September 2013).

  19. 19.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 6.

  20. 20.

    See Recital 1 of the Preamble.

  21. 21.

    Article 95 EC, currently Article 114 TFEU.

  22. 22.

    Article 151(1) and 151(3)(a) EC (currently Article 169(1) and 169(2)(a) TFEU).

  23. 23.

    See Recital 18 of the Preamble to the Directive. See also paragraph 2.5 below.

  24. 24.

    See on this goal also T Wilhelmsson, ‘The informed consumer v the vulnerable consumer in European unfair commercial practices law—a comment’, in G Howells et al (eds), The yearbook of consumer law 2007 (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007) 211.

  25. 25.

    Also EU consumer law in general lacks a clear rationale of consumer protection. See for further discussion, e.g., J Stuyck, ‘European consumer law after the Treaty of Amsterdam: consumer policy in or beyond the internal market? (2000) Common market law review 367, I Ramsay, Consumer law and policy (Oxford, Hart, 2012) (in particular Chap. 2) and H Micklitz, ‘The expulsion of the concept of protection from the consumer law and the return of social elements in the civil law: a bittersweet polemic’ (2012) Journal of consumer policy 283–296.

  26. 26.

    Preamble to the Directive, Recital 4. See for a more elaborate discussion on this sub-goal paragraph 11.3.2 of this book.

  27. 27.

    Preamble to the Directive, Recital 4. See more elaborately paragraph 11.3.3 of this book.

  28. 28.

    See also the goals discussed by Gomez in his economic analysis of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: F Gomez, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 4.

  29. 29.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 6.

  30. 30.

    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) 2. See also C Gielen (ed), Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht (Deventer, Kluwer, 2011) 615.

  31. 31.

    Recital 8 of the Preamble to the Directive.

  32. 32.

    See in particular paragraph 11.4 of this book.

  33. 33.

    See also R van den Bergh and M Lehmann, ‘Informationsökonomie und Verbraucherschutz im Wettbewerbs- und Warenzeichenrecht’ (1992) GRUR Int. 593, F Gomez, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 8 and A MacCulloch, ‘The consumer and competition law’, in G Howells et al (eds), Handbook of research on international consumer law (Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar, 2010) 90–91.

  34. 34.

    See the Extended Impact Assessment, SEC (2003) 724, p. 8.

  35. 35.

    CJEU 16 July 1998, Case C-210/96, ECR 1998, p. I-4657 ( Gut Springenheide). See also paragraph 3.2.8 below.

  36. 36.

    See the Extended Impact Assessment, SEC (2003) 724, p. 8. The Commission refers to the Belgian case Cour de Cassation 12 October 2000 ( Saint-Brice NV/Etat Belge) and the German cases BGH 20 December 2001, I ZR 215/98, WRP 2002, 977—Scanner-Werbung and BGH 20 October 1999, I ZR 167/97, WRP 2000, 517—Orient-Teppichmuster. The German cases are discussed in more detail in Chap. 5 of this book.

  37. 37.

    SEC (2003) 724, p. 8. See also the Preamble to the proposed directive, COM (2003) 356 final, Recital. 21.

  38. 38.

    COM (2003) 356 final, Article 2(b).

  39. 39.

    Recital 30 of the Preamble to the proposed directive, COM (2003) 356 final.

  40. 40.

    Although this exception to the average consumer benchmark may to some extent be supported by the Buet case, the CJEU had never formulated a general exception to that effect. See CJEU 16 May 1989, Case C-382/87, ECR 1989, p. 1235 (Buet) and paragraph 3.2.2 of this book.

  41. 41.

    G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 20.

  42. 42.

    OJ C 108/81, para. 3.6.

  43. 43.

    A5-0188/2004, amendments 8 and 31. Bernitz notes that it was in particular the Nordic countries that called for special protection of vulnerable groups. See U Bernitz, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: its scope, ambitions and relation to the law of unfair competition’, in S Weatherill and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart 2007) 39.

  44. 44.

    As discussed below, this could possibly be seen as a paradigm shift in terms of the level of protection. It should be noted, however, that the official reason given by the Commission for moving the removing the notion of the average consumer notion was that there were concerns that giving a definition in the Directive would prevent the concept from evolving in line with CJEU jurisprudence. See COM (2004) 753 final, p. 3.

  45. 45.

    See OJ C 38 E/1.

  46. 46.

    See COM (2004) 753 final.

  47. 47.

    G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 112. See also M Broekman, ‘De Richtlijn Oneer-lijke Handelspraktijken’ (2005) Tijdschrift voor consumentenrecht & handelspraktijken 178.

  48. 48.

    The European Parliament in its position in the first reading of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive meant to include economic factors, but this in the end did not make it into the Directive. See A5-0188/2004, Amendment 12.

  49. 49.

    See, e.g., CJEU 16 September 1999, Case C-220/98, ECR 2000, p. I-117 ( Lifting). See also the discussion of the case law of the CJEU in the following chapter.

  50. 50.

    J Trzaskowski, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013) 1–2.

  51. 51.

    See e.g., R Incardona and C Poncibò, ‘The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution’ (2007) Journal of consumer policy 21 and J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 13–14.

  52. 52.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 25.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 56.

  55. 55.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 26.

  56. 56.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 32. See also C Willet, ‘Fairness and consumer decision making under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ (2010) Journal of consumer policy 270.

  57. 57.

    See on this issue also paragraph 4.2 of this book.

  58. 58.

    See in this respect the Extended impact assessment on the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, SEC (2003) 724, p. 26. The EC Guidance also stresses that an expert group can be taken as the benchmark if such a group is targeted. See SEC (2009) 1666, p. 29.

  59. 59.

    SEC (2009) 1666, pp. 28–29.

  60. 60.

    See also G Howells, ‘The scope of European consumer law’ (2005) European review of contract law 367 and G Abbamonte, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: an example of the new European consumer protection approach’ (2006) Columbia journal of European law 708.

  61. 61.

    SEC (2009) 1666, p. 29.

  62. 62.

    The fear that this could be the consequence of the Directive’s vulnerable group benchmark is expressed by Scherer, who warns that a broad application of the vulnerable group benchmark would make mass media marketing practically impossible. See I Scherer, ‘Ende der Werbung in Massenmedien?’ (2008) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 563–571.

  63. 63.

    See also G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 113–114. See also J Stuyck, E Terryn and T van Dyck, ‘Confidence through fairness? The new Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market’ (2006) Common market law review 151.

  64. 64.

    See also T Wilhelmsson, ‘The informed consumer v the vulnerable consumer in European unfair commercial practices law—a comment’, in G Howells et al (eds), The yearbook of consumer law 2007 (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007) 218 and J Stuyck, E Terryn and T van Dyck, ‘Confidence through fairness? The new Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market’ (2006) Common market law review 151. This issue is investigated in more detail in Chap. 10 of this book, where the Directive’s approach to vulnerability is discussed in relation to vulnerability as seen by the behavioural sciences.

  65. 65.

    A quick survey of language versions of the Directive shows that most versions examined (English, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, German and Czech) include a similar term (i.e., only, or sometimes even ‘solely’, e.g., Spanish) to the English language version. The exception is the French language version, which omits reference to such a term: ‘Les pratiques commerciales qui sont susceptibles d’altérer de manière substantielle le comportement économique d’un groupe clairement identifiable de consommateurs parce que ceux-ci sont particulièrement vulnérables à la pratique utilisée ou au produit qu’elle concerne en raison d’une infirmité mentale ou physique, de leur âge ou de leur crédulité, alors que l’on pourrait raisonnablement attendre du professionnel qu’il prévoie cette conséquence, sont évaluées du point de vue du membre moyen de ce groupe.’

  66. 66.

    See, for example, G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 115–116.

  67. 67.

    See also J Trzaskowski, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013) 13.

  68. 68.

    See on the latter distinction also Chap. 10 of this book.

References

  • Abbamonte, G, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: an example of the new European consumer protection approach’ (2006) Columbia journal of European law 695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernitz, U, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: its scope, ambitions and relation to the law of unfair competition’, in S Weatherill and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart 2007) 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekman, M, ‘De Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken’ (2005) Tijdschrift voor consumentenrecht & handelspraktijken 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cristofaro, G, ‘Die zivilrechtlichen Folgen des Verstoßes gegen das Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken: eine vergleichende Analyse der Lösungen der EU-Mitgliedstaaten’ (2010) GRUR Int. 1017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, I and Öberg, U, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in context’, in S Weatherill, and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart, 2007) 91–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, C (ed), Kort begrip van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht (Deventer, Kluwer, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, G, ‘The scope of European consumer law’ (2005) European review of contract law 360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, G, Micklitz, H, and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • Incardona, R and Poncibò, C, ‘The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution’ (2007) Journal of consumer policy 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabel, J, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCulloch, A, ‘The consumer and competition law’, in G Howells et al (eds), Handbook of research on international consumer law (Cheltenham/Northampton, Edward Elgar, 2010) 77–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H, ‘The expulsion of the concept of protection from the consumer law and the return of social elements in the civil law: a bittersweet polemic’ (2012) Journal of consumer policy 283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, F, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: a law and economics perspective’ (2006) European review of contract law 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsay, I, Consumer law and policy (Oxford, Hart, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, I, ‘Ende der Werbung in Massenmedien?’ (2008) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck J, Terryn E and Van Dyck T, ‘Confidence through fairness? The new Directive on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market’ (2006) Common market law review 107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck, J, ‘European consumer law after the Treaty of Amsterdam: consumer policy in or beyond the internal market? (2000) Common market law review 367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trzaskowski, J, ‘The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and vulnerable consumers’ (Paper for the Conference of the International association of consumer law in Sydney, 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bergh, R and Lehmann, M, ‘Informationsökonomie und Verbraucherschutz im Wettbewerbs- und Warenzeichenrecht’ (1992) GRUR Int. 588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelmsson, T, ‘The informed consumer v the vulnerable consumer in European unfair commercial practices law—a comment’, in G Howells et al (eds), The yearbook of consumer law 2007 (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007) 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hoogenraad & Haak advertising + IP advocaten / University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bram B. Duivenvoorde

Authors
  1. Bram B. Duivenvoorde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram B. Duivenvoorde .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. 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_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation