Scent of a EU citizen

The European Commission published today a final opinion of the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) regarding fragrance allergens in cosmetic products. Earlier this year we have discussed the preliminary opinion of the SCCS (Scenting... new regulations), which aimed at identifying potentially allergenic fragrance ingredients. Aside the already known 26 ingredients (that have been identified in 1999), additional 30 individual chemicals and 26 natural extracts were added to the list. The opinion suggests the tolerable concentration limits for some of these ingredients that would be unlikely to cause allergies with consumers. Based on the SCCS opinion, the Commission will now consider whether any regulatory measures need to be taken.

Clinical trials on the (exam) table

The European Commission presented this month a proposal for a new regulation on clinical trials. Clinical trials means that the new medicines are tested on humans. On the one hand, it gives patients access to most recent, most innovative treatments and helps business develop new medicines and improve the already authorised ones. On the other hand, it can bring about quite a risk, which means that it needs to be strictly regulated. The new European Regulation is supposed to replace the 'Clinical Trials Directive' of 2001 and simplify and speed up the authorisation and reporting procedures, while at the same time keep up the high standards for patients' safety and the reliability of data. The Directive of 2001 was differently transposed by various Member States which led to unfavourable regulatory framework and a decline by 25% in clinical trials between 2007 and 2011. (Fostering EU's attractiveness in clinical research: Commission proposes to revamp rules on trials with medicines)

Q&A

EU helps to keep it real

"Got a real bargain when I bought this Louis Vuitton wallet for 10 euro". Well, who doesn't like a bargain? Some bargains are too good to be true, though, and it's unlikely that you would get an original product for price that is not anywhere close to the shop price. With certain products a bargain is also not what consumers should be looking for. Spending more money on a product usually guarantees its better quality, its authenticity, which is crucial for the health and safety of consumers when products such as medicines, food etc. are concerned. In order to protect consumers, as well as to protect intellectual property rights, the EU Customs department diligently examines products entering the EU market in order to comply with the EU's 2020 Strategy. In 2011, they detained almost 115 million products suspected of violating IPR (in 2010 that number was just 103 million) valued at 1,3 billion euro. (Report on EU customs enforcement of IPR) Out of these products 24% were medicines, 21% packaging material, 18% cigarettes, products for daily use that could potentially be dangerous to consumers - 28,6%. The main offender is still China (73% of all infringing articles come from there). Fake foodstuff comes usually from Turkey, alcoholic drinks - Panama, soft drinks - Thailand, mobile phones - Hong Kong. (EU customs detain over 100 million fake goods at EU borders)

Cross-border succession in the EU

A few months ago we have posted about a new Regulation in matters of succession (An elderly uncle living in another Member State?...). This regulation becomes European law tomorrow - upon its publication in the Official Journal. New provisions aim at simplifying the procedure of inheritance of properties located in different Member States by determining that it is the country of habitual residence of the deceased whose laws will apply to establishing the jurisdiction and the law applicable in cross-border cases. It also provides for a European Certificate of Succession, allowing heirs to prove their claims to the inheritance throughout the EU. Member States have three years to implement them into their national laws. (EU rules to ease cross-border successions are now law)

New EC Video Campaigns

Granny goes roaming:



... and 100.000 lives saved:

Protecting open internet

Yesterday the European Commission opened a public consultation on preservation of the open internet, which refers to the concept of net neutrality. The idea of open internet is that consumers should have a free choice among various internet offers, which means that these offers should be transparent and easily comparable, that consumers could switch between operators and that their online privacy would be protected. The consultation is opened until 15 October 2012 and consumers as well as public and private parties are invited to participate in it.

"Today there is a lack of effective consumer choice when it comes to internet offers. I will use this consultation to help prepare recommendations that will generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe. Input from this consultation will help turn BEREC's findings into practical recommendations." said Neelie Kroes (Commission opens public consultation on preservation of the open internet (net neutrality)).

Safe food

Continuing with news on the food policy of the EU, last week the European Commission published a report about the efficiency of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (FAQ on RASFF). This EU's tool helps to avert or mitigate many food safety risks by quickly spreading any information about risks found in food or feed (e.g. discovered during the safety checks at EU borders), contributing to the increase in EU citizens' health.

"European consumers enjoy the highest food safety standards in the world. The EU's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed is a key tool as it allows risks to be identified and removed from the European market. RASFF reinforces the confidence of our consumers in our food and feed safety system. In 2011, we dealt with a number of important crises such as the effects of the Fukushima nuclear incident, the dioxin and the E. coli crisis. The EU managed to tackle them and the lessons we all learnt will no doubt guide us to do even better in the future." said John Dalli, Commissioner in charge of Health and Consumer Policy (Food: Latest Report shows EU Controls ensure our food is safe)

Annual report of 2010 may be read here , 2011 - here.

EU dietary guidelines

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opened a public consultation last week on the draft Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values (DRV) for energy. Basically, they are proposing new average energy requirements for adults, infants, children and pregnant and lactating women, taking into account the fact that a balanced diet should provide adequate amounts of energy and nutrients for health. The DRV set out the average intake of nutrients, adequate intake as well as lower threshold intake values. These values may then be used as reference in, e.g., food labelling. They also guide consumers in their choice what to eat. The last EU opinion comes from 1993 so it is indeed time to review it. (Dietary reference values and dietary guidelines)

If you are interested in finding out more about the proposal - see here. If you'd like to participate in the consultation, it is open until 28 September 2012, and you should visit its website.

Bon Voyage!

In this holiday period the European Commission has many travel-related issues on its agenda.

Yesterday, a public consultation was launched that aims at finding out what is the situation for victims of cross-border traffic accidents in the EU. It is estimated that at least 2% of all road accidents in the EU involve visitors from other EU countries. These can be tourists, cross-border workers or cross-border commuters. If a EU citizen is a victim of a car accident, he is likely to want to claim some compensation for his damages. Unfortunately, the EU law in this area is not harmonised, which means that there are different national rules for claiming such compensation. Especially problematic is the difference in time limits for making a claim which can range from 1 to 10 years (see Annex: Have a safe trip: Commission consults on how to help victims of road accidents abroad). These cut-off periods may contribute to making it difficult for the victims to claim compensation. The consultation will be open until 19 November and it is supposed to shed some light as to what future actions should the European Commission take. For example, it could harmonise limitation and prescription periods in the EU or it could just try to improve information given to victims of cross-border road accidents.

Additionally, the European Commission announced yesterday its approval for the Single European Sky Performance Scheme. The scheme contains national performance plans that are supposed to save billions of Euros for air passengers as well as airlines in years 2012-2014 by improving air navigation services. This would result in less delays, cheaper flights and reduction of environmental impact of air traffic. Currently, it is estimated that passengers ultimately pay between 6% and 10% of the airline's operating costs. The goal is to reduce user charges by ca. 2.4 billion Euros. (Commission approves national performance plans to reduce costs and...)

Protecting consumers' choice in choosing air fares - CJEU case ebookers.com Deutschland (C-112/11)

19 July 2012: CJEU's judgement in the case ebookers.com Deutschland (C-112/11)

Regulation No 1008/2008 on common rules for the operation of air services protects passengers from unfair treatment by the airlines. For example, its recital 16 puts an obligation on the airlines to clearly indicate the final price (inclusive of all taxes, charges, fees etc.) to be paid by customers for air services, so that they are able to compare effectively the prices for air services of different airlines. The regulation defines what kind of charges should be included in the final price, as well as what to understand under air fares and air rates. It also requires all optional price supplements to be communicated in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of any booking process to the customer. The customer needs to clearly indicate his choice to pay any optional charges, which means that the 'opt-in' system has to be used to acquire customer's consent. The airlines are not allowed to check in boxes for optional price supplements as a default choice of passengers. (Art. 23 Regulation). This provision aims at protecting customers from overlooking a certain payment that has been chosen for them, which they may forget to reject. Moreover, it may prevent customers from seeing the default chosen options as the 'right ones', which they should go with.

In the case at hand the German consumer protection (BVV) organisation brought a case against ebookers.com, a company which organises air travel online. In the process of making a reservation on their website, the customer sees on the right hand side of the page his current travel costs. The 'total price of travel' that is indicated encompasses also 'travel cancellation insurance', which is calculated automatically and added to the travel price even though it is an optional payment. The passenger then pays the total price of travel in a single sum to ebookers.com, which company then transfers the costs of the cancellation insurance to an insurance company. If the customer does not want to take on the cancellation insurance, he needs to opt-out from this charge (and an information about how to do this may be found only at the bottom of the internet page). The BVV rightly noticed that this method could be seen as infringing provisions of the Regulation. The legal question that arose was whether the reference in Article 23 of the Regulation to 'optional price supplements' should be understood as covering costs, connected with the air travel, arising from services supplied by third parties (e.g. travel cancellation insurance) which are charged to the customer by the company selling the travel as part of the total price.

The CJEU decided that such an interpretation of this provision is necessary in order to assure transparency with regard to the prices for air services. (Par. 13)

"Those optional price supplements therefore relate to services which, supplementing the air service itself, are neither compulsory nor necessary for the carriage of passengers or cargo, with the result that the customer chooses either to accept or refuse them. It is precisely because a customer is in a position to make that choice that such price supplements must be communicated in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of any booking process, and that their acceptance by the customer must be on an opt-in basis, as laid down in the last sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1008/2008." (Par. 14)

In that respect, as also noticed by Advocate General Mazák, it should not make a difference for the scope of the passengers' protection whether the optional additional service is offered by an air carrier or by another, third party. (Par. 17) Therefore, as long as the optional additional service that is being offered during the booking process to customers is linked to the flight itself, it does not matter who is offering its performance. It falls under the definition of 'optional price supplements'. (Par. 18) The customers should, therefore, have a real choice as to whether they want to pay such a supplement and not find themselves bound by it as a default option.