Court action plans criticised by consumer organisations

Date: 21/11/1996

CONSUMER groups have criticised European Commission proposals designed to make it easier for organisations to bring consumer-related court actions in other member states.

The Commission is proposing that recognised organisations in member states be allowed to apply for injunctions anywhere in the EU.

This would mean that, for example, a French consumer group which objected to a German television advertisement which could be received on French screens could take action in the German courts to prevent the broadcasts.

But it would be up to member states to draw up lists of eligible organisations.

“We feel the Commission position is very weak. It is left up to member states to decide who is eligible to bring court actions and some governments do not recognise consumer organisations in this respect,” said Valerie Thompson of the European consumers' lobby BEUC.

In the UK, for example, the power to take most general consumer-related legal action rests with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). Consumer affairs groups cannot act directly.

The Commission counters that its hands are effectively tied on the issue and it has come up with the best set of guidelines possible in the circumstances.

“We have to respect the principle of subsidiarity here. Under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, judicial matters are very clearly the domain of member states. What we have done is to come up with a proposal which addresses the needs of the single market and at the same time does not interfere with national legal systems,” said a top official in the Directorate-General for consumer affairs (DGXXIV).

Most member states acknowledge that consumers should have access to justice across the Union and agreement on this basic principle is expected at a meeting of consumer affairs ministers next Monday (25 November). But any attempt to widen application of the principle is likely to meet with stiff resistance.

The Commission is also calling for harmonisation of shoppers' statutory rights across the Union. Under its proposal, all consumer goods would be automatically guaranteed for two years. In the first year, customers would be entitled to either a replacement or a full refund for faulty goods. During the second, they would have the right either to have the item repaired or to a partial refund.

But customers would still have to return the faulty goods to the shop where they were bought, which could involve travel costs far exceeding the value of the item concerned.