DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMISSION - Fresh hopes on a more realistic and pragmatic consumer protection policy in Europe as its consumers and the ECRC are given a new Commissioner in Brussels. Pending the Parliament’s vote of approval on Meglena Kuneva as Commissioner-designate for Consumer Protection scheduled on Tuesday 12 December, her formal appointment by the Council, her oath before the Court of Justice, and Bulgaria’s official EU institutional entry, the ECRC rejoices in the possibility of repairing and rebuilding the once fruitful relationship it had with the European Commission. We approve not only of the restructuring of DG SANCO into a separate DG dedicated to consumer protection, but also in the appointment of Meglena Kuneva from Bulgarian whom we intend to write a letter to in the new year. Below is a summary of the hearing she had on the 27th of November with parliamentarians from the Committees for Internal Market and Environment (the parliamentary committee dealing with consumer protection). ECRC is also pleased to see that 2 of the coalition’s MEP supporters, the honourable Frau Rühle and Mme Patrie are quoted in the press release showing their active involvement in getting to know the new Commisioner. MEP’s asked the Bulgarian candidate Meglena Kuneva about the following issues: her ability to integrate into the collegiate body; the limited time and budget; consumer protection in the New Member States; consumer credit. Though we hope that her priorities will include, as she underlined herself, the need for research and better communication and promised dialogue with citizens and consumer organisations, we also hope that along with this consensus building comes a pragmatic approach to harmonisation of legislation, a genuine attempt to understand disparities in consumer protection, and a clear path forward upon reading the opinion and assessment reports due in March 2007. ECRC: ASSESSMENT STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF THE DRAFT ON NATIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTION LEVELS IS NECESSARY It should be noted that this evaluation will be a purely economic evaluation for markets etc. , and in fact we still ignore who was mandated with this evaluation. What the Parliament would need is the assessment of its impact on the level of consumer protection in the member states. Such an assessment could only be made by an independent consumer research institute. The Parliament already protested against the fact that the Commission itself had not mandated an assessment study before and only mandated this study because the commission refused to take this step itself now. If the new Commissioner wants to take consumer protection seriously she should consider mandating such a study on her own account, asking for it to also be ready by March 2007. Only these two assessments would allow the proper evaluation of the existing draft. Meantime, ECRC members should busy themselves with making a contribution to this assessment by bringing together expertise on how this draft would actually impact on national levels of consumer protection. In Finland, Germany and the UK such studies are already available. Other countries should follow suite so that ECRC can present all these studies as the network’s own contribution for the assessment of the draft, before the end of March 2007 so as to assist the new Commissioner and the Parliament in a timely fashion. --------------------- European Commission press release 27/11/2006 (Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, Chair : Arlene McCarthy (PES, UK), Hearing of Meglena Kuneva, Commissioner-designate) SUMMARY OF HEARING OF MEGLENA KUNEVA, COMMISSIONER-DESIGNATE FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION “Consumer protection is central to the interests of every European citizen”, said Meglena Kuneva, the Bulgarian Commissioner-designate for Consumer Protection. She was speaking at her hearing on Monday with the European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. “It covers the most important matters – man's evolution and the organisation of [his] interests.” It was, she said, a policy to bring Europe closer to its citizens. A policy that applies to the life, health and the economic interests of millions of citizens, she noted in her opening statement, “needs to be based on serious research” – and on better communication. "I will make decisions on the basis of an open dialogue with you […] and with other interested parties", including consumer organisations, Mrs Kuneva told MEPs. In this field, “the dialogue is just as important as the objective itself.” The Bulgarian candidate Commissioner stressed the importance of the EU's "better regulation" campaign. The Lisbon jobs and growth strategy, she argued, "can be successful only if business has the trust of the consumers for active participation in the opportunities which the market provides. “I should like to place consumer issues at the centre of the formulation of European Union policies and to demonstrate to the citizens of the EU that Europe can enhance the quality of their daily lives," she said. According to Mrs Kuneva, her main tasks would include working to complete the review of the consumer protection legislative framework, to improve the enforcement of laws already in place, to "consolidate and develop further the progress already made in the area of enforcing product safety rules" and to raise the capacity of consumer organisations. A SHORTENED MANDATE, A LOWER BUDGET MEPs asked the Commissioner-designate several questions about how she would fit into the team of Commissioners. Malcolm Harbour (EPP-ED, UK) asked how she would work on her policy goals within the Commission’s collegiate system. She said “I hope to have contact with all my colleagues” in communicating each policy as consumer protection was “complementary to every single EU policy.” While acknowledging that this was the first time that consumer protection had been made a separate portfolio, she pointed out that this policy did have a separate legal basis of its own, which was why it was autonomous. “I will make use of this”, she promised. Others, including Heide Rühle (Greens/EFA, DE), noted that the new Commissioner would have to work within an already established, and very limited, financial framework. Mrs Kuneva, however, felt these financial constraints would have their good side as they “will force us to define our priorities clearly”. These priorities would include good consumer education and training and more information and support for organisations that help inform consumers. Another obstacle facing the Commissioner, said Béatrice Patrie (PES, FR), was that she would be joining the Commission mid-way through its term of office. Mrs Kuneva said she was aware of the short time remaining and was therefore determined to use existing instruments, including the Green Paper, currently in its final stage of preparation, and the Directive on unfair commercial practices which will enter into force in December 2007. It is “very important to have a strong Commissioner for consumer protection”, said Evelyne Gebhardt (PES, DE), asking Mrs Kuneva to elaborate on how her policy aims could play out against the Commission's legislative programme for 2007. The Commissioner-designate responded by citing a number of areas on which she would focus. One was “the area linked to the digital environment and services provided by the internet"; another, she noted, was the legislative framework for contract law. “What I’m missing here is any element of personal initiative”, said Mrs Gebhardt. The candidate Commissioner responded by saying she “would rather wait for the results of [...] the Green Paper” before producing a fuller reply. HARMONISATION, CONSUMER CREDIT AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE NEW MEMBER STATES The most frequently asked question concerned the Commissioner-designate’s views on the degree of harmonisation of national laws needed in the field of consumer protection. To a question by Toine Manders (ALDE, NL), she replied “where possible we should apply a philosophy of maximum harmonisation”. Some Members thought this implied a threat of “levelling down” of consumer protection standards. “Have I understood correctly, are you completely in favour of total harmonisation?” asked Marianne Thyssen (EPP-ED, BE). Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PES, DE) pointed out that total harmonisation towards the “lowest common denominator” can mean lowering the level of consumer protection in countries where the standard is higher. Mrs Kuneva explained that “total harmonisation is desirable where it is possible” - in other words, rarely. Asked by Manuel Medina Ortega (PES, ES) to comment on development of the proposed consumer credit directive, Mrs. Kuneva remarked that progress cannot be made "without a united vision". In this case "what is missing is that consensus”. She added: “I will do whatever I can do create a good basis for our joint work”. Othmar Karas (EPP-ED, AT), pointed out that this legislative proposal had been strongly criticised and that Parliament’s and the Council’s positions were now a long way from the initial draft. He criticised the fact that the impact assessment of this legislation had not been annexed to the draft, which was a text ”of uncertain added value”. “Would you be prepared to withdraw this text if the result of the impact assessment is negative?”, he wanted to know. “Yes”, answered the Commissioner-designate, while stressing that it was far too early for considerations of this kind and that it was best to await the forthcoming opinion of the presidency and the study commissioned by Parliament and expected in March 2007. According to Mrs Kuneva, it is “important to have a common legal base and common practices everywhere” in the European Union. "We need to have the same level of consumer protection throughout the EU", she stressed, pointing to the disparities that can exist in protection standards and also between the "consumer protection cultures" of "the new and old Member States". Prompted by Christel Schaldemose (PES, DK), to expand on this topic, the Commissioner-designate mentioned that the main answer to overcoming the "gap" in consumer protection mechanisms between new and old Member States “isn’t going to be access to information, however important that is”; rather it is going to be the challenge of building “consumer confidence”. --------------------- NOTES: 1) The ECRC also welcomes Leonard Orban, the Commissioner-designate for Romania, who has been assigned the multilingualism and inter-cultural dialogue portfolio and thus answered questions from the Culture and Constitutional Affairs Committees. He said that multilingualism is a must in the EU and forms part of its identity, and also said that multilingualism is good for business and competitiveness, before stressing the importance of quality EU translation in ensuring good communication. We agree, with him too, and would go one step further to say that alongside the promotion and protection of all languages within the EU we should also promote and protect some of the social traditions and cultural preferences that EU citizens deem to be important to their lives, such as some form of protection against overindebtedness and predatory practices. 2) The mandates of both new Commissioners will expire at the end of October 2009 (at the same time as the Commissioners already in office). 3) Number of MEPs after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania: Since 26 September 2005, 35 observer MEPs from Romania and 18 from Bulgaria have been sitting at the European Parliament. Following the accession of the two countries on 1 January 2007, the observers will become full MEPs (under Article 21.1 of the Accession Treaty). Bulgaria and Romania will nevertheless have to hold European elections before the end of 2007 (Article 21.2). The total number of Members of the European Parliament will be 785. For the next legislative term, after the elections of June 2009, Romania and Bulgaria will have 33 and 17 MEPs respectively, while the total number of MEPs will be 736. ID: 39192 Autor(en): iff Erscheinungsdatum: 07.12.06

World Partner       EU-Partner

Erzeugt: 07.12.06. Letzte Änderung: 07.12.06.
Information zum Urheberrecht der angezeigten Inhalte kann beim Institut für Finanzdienstleistungen erfragt werden. Aus fehlenden Angaben kann kein Recht zur freien Nutzung der Inhalte abgeleitet werden.