Fireworks control

Yesterday, the European Parliament adopted the Commission's proposal to make the market for pyrotechnics articles subject to stricter rules by adapting the Directive 2007/23/EC on the placing on the market of pyrotechnic articles. This directive is the first one to be changed out of the package of nine product safety directives that have been presented by the Commission to the Parliament for adaptation (the others concern: non-automatic weighing instruments, measuring instruments, simple pressure vessels, lifts, explosives for civil uses, electromagnetic compatibility, low voltage electrical equipment and equipment used in explosive atmospheres). (see: Product safety improved in nine industry sectors) The aim of the revision is to make the use of fireworks (but also airbags, seatbelts, etc.) safer for consumers in the EU, due to stricter requirements for clearer labels and instructions in the language(s) of each Member State in which these fireworks are being sold. Only products who comply with these rules would be allowed to carry CE marking. Fireworks will be divided into four categories: 

F1 - age limit 12 years - for use in confined areas - with a very low hazard and negligible noise level;

F2 - age limit 16 years - for outdoor use in confined areas - with low hazard and low noise level;

F3 - age limit 18 years - for outdoor use in large open areas - with medium hazard and not harmful noise level;

F4 - age limit 18 years - for use only by persons with specialist knowledge - with high hazard and not harmful noise level.

Member States will be allowed to increase the age limits mentioned above.

Impact of the new ADR and ODR rules

Today the ECC-NET holds its annual conference in Dublin during which the impact and the implementation of the forthcoming ADR and ODR legislation will be discussed. (ECC-Net annual conference: EU consumers could save 22.5 billion euro) The Irish European Consumer Centre commissioned a report "The Implication of the Proposed ADR Directive for the Resolution of Consumer Disputes in Ireland" which is available online on their website.

"According to recent research, losses experienced by cross-border shoppers are estimated at EUR 425 million per annum. The European Commission has estimated that if EU consumers can rely on well-functioning and transparent ADR for their disputes, both national and cross-border, they could save around €22.5 billion a year, corresponding to 0.19% of EU GDP. The ADR Directive and ODR Regulation when implemented will allow business to consumer disputes to be settled fast, effectively and cheaply without going to court. Effective ADR offers both business and consumers a win-win situation encouraging consumers to spend secure in the knowledge that if something goes wrong it is easy for them to access redress while business will avoid the costs of going to court". said Dr. Ann Neville (Director of ECC Ireland)

EU patients' rights

Last week, on account of the European Patients' Rights Day, the European Commission listed 10 benefits that the European Union brings to patients. EU patients have a right:

1. to receive healthcare when visiting another EU country;

2. to be reimbursed for healthcare sought in another EU country;

3. to receive information on safety and quality standards in EU countries;

4. to be treated by qualified healthcare professionals;

5. to get a copy of their medical records;

6. to have their prescription recognised in all EU countries;

7. to be treated with safe and effective measures;

8. to be able to report suspected side effects of medicines;

9. to be treated with safe medical devices;

10. to benefit from common high standards of quality for blood, organs, tissues and cells.

Keeping European consumers safe

European Commission published an annual RAPEX report for 2012 "Keeping European consumers safe" (on the operation of the Rapid Alert System for non-food dangerous products). The comparison of the report with the one from 2011 shows an increase of 26% in reported alerts. The main products that raised issues of safety were clothing, textiles and fashion items (34%), toys (19%) with the main risks such as: chemical risks (e.g., in plastic dolls), risk of strangulation (e.g., in children swimwear due to drawstrings) and risk of injury. Once more, most products that were notified as posing risks to consumers came from China. (Stronger EU cooperation leads to higher consumer safety)

Chartering European consumer law

The European Commission recently published its annual report on the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2012. The report contains a considerable number of references to consumer protection, notably on the topics of digital content and cloud computing services (consumer information and data protection), health care (the CJEU's judgment in Deutsches Weintor), the enforcement of existing consumer protection Directives (timeshare, consumer sales, misleading commercial practices) and effective remedies (Art. 47 of the Charter).

More facts and figures are available on the Commission's DG Justice's website.

The application of the Charter to cases that are considered to be of a private legal nature under the laws of the Member States, furthermore, raises some interesting questions. For a discussion of some of those, I refer to a recent paper by Dorota Leczykiewicz (Horizontal effect of fundamental rights) and one of my own working papers (Unchart(er)ed territory: EU fundamental rights and national private law).

What the internet is doing to our brains

Those of you interested in consumer behaviour, more specifically in regard to digital consumer contracts, might also be interested in watching this short film about the internet's effects on behaviour and learning processes:

To withdraw or not to withdraw?

My colleague, and the founder of this blog, Joasia Luzak recently wrote an insightful paper on the pros and cons of giving consumers a right to withdraw from distance contracts: To withdraw or not to withdraw? Evaluation of the mandatory right of withdrawal in consumer distance selling contracts taking into account its behavioural effects on consumers.

The abstract reads as follows:

'The right of withdrawal was introduced to European consumer law as an exception to the general contractual principle of pacta sunt servanda. It has recently been upheld in the Consumer Rights Directive as a mandatory right for consumers concluding distance selling contracts. Among various assessments of this measure a comprehensive evaluation thereof from the point of view of consumers’ interests is lacking. Such an assessment is conducted in this paper with consideration of the effect that the right of withdrawal is likely to have on consumers. The yardstick for the evaluation of the current rules, as well as for suggesting a new approach is the increased consumer welfare, which takes into account consumers’ happiness and their lack of regret for entering into transactions.'

Interim injunctions to stop EMA from releasing non-clinical and clinical data

As we mentioned last month the Court of Justice was asked by two major pharmaceutical companies AbbVie (case T-44/13, T-29/13) and InterMune (T-73/13) to issue injunctions against the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to stop EMA from releasing certain non-clinical and clinical trial data until a final ruling is given by the Court on validity of such disclosure. The EMA's 2010 access-to-documents policy allowed it to release some of the information as part of marketing-authorisation applications. The EMA is considering whether to appeal the interim decision (EMA receives interim decisions of the General Court of the EU on access to clinical and non-clinical information). 

This is just a small part of a bigger battle to define the concept of 'commercially confidential information' in the EU. While the EMA and its supporters (over 30 statements of support have been given to the EMA from an impressive group of representatives of medical journals, scientific organisations, patient advocacy groups, academic institutions, research centres etc. - see a join letter of support) claim that transparency and openness of such information is not

only desirable but even required in order to enable proper scrutiny of EMA's recommendations on medicines. Lack of common access to that information may prevent effective monitoring of health claims and may endanger consumers' health.

Flight tickets' price transparency

The European Consumer Organisation, BEUC, sent two letters this April regarding price transparency of airline tickets to Association of European Airlines and European Low Fares Airline Association. The letters are based on the UK Office of Fair Trading decision regarding surcharges in the air transport sector. The OFT considers separation of compulsory charges from the headline prices as misleading to consumers (which is in accordance with Art. 23 of the Regulation 1008/2008). Moreover, the OFT decided that if surcharges for the use of debit cards (standard online payment mechanism) are added to the final price, this would pose a serious obstacle to any price comparison that consumers were making. The OFT informed the airlines operating from the UK that they had till December 2012 to comply with price transparency guidelines and most of them adapted their policies. The BEUC argues now for the Associations to recommend these guidelines to all their members, so that all consumers across the EU were confronted with the same price transparency rules.

Lack of EU collective redress weakens position of defective breast implants' victims

EU consumer organisation BEUC issued a press release on the 17th of April lamenting the constant lack of a possibility to claim consumer collective redress in Europe (Victims of breast implants scandal flight for compensation - need for EU to better protect with Collective Redress). Even though for years now the European Commission and other parties expressed their concern about the lack of effective enforcement of consumer rights when an individual consumer suffers damage of little monetary value but the harm to the society could be great, no laws have yet been introduced. There are only a few countries in the EU who allow consumers to bring a collective claim to court or in front of a tribunal, mostly in the form of a representative action. Not only is there lack of harmonisation of these measures among the Member States, but also rarely these proceedings give consumers all advances that a EU class action/ representative action system could. This issue became relevant again with more than 5000 women (victims from various EU countries since the device was sent across Europe) seeking compensation due to damage they have suffered from defective breast implants.