Konsultatsioon

P osition paper of Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications of Estonia on EU’s New Consumer Agenda The European Commission has launched its consultation to gather views of the public , including public authorities, on four initiatives in the EU consumer policy that the Commissions plans to propose in 2020 and 2021. The consultation is organised in four sections, each corresponding to one initiative: 1) A New Consumer Agenda; 2) Empowering the consumer for the green transition; 3) Review of the Directive on credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC); 4) Review of the Directive on General Product Safety (2001/95/EC). Below you will find our views in regard respective initiatives. A New Consumer Agenda In relation to reimbursements in travel sector , w e are of an opinion that specific rules should apply to situation where worldwide travel restrictions have caused almost a standstill of travel, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic. Henceforth we are open to ideas put forward by Commission in this regard, such as longer reimbursement deadlines or reimbursement in the form of vouchers. Proposed ideas would in our assessment better protect consumer s as otherwise travel companies would go out of business and in the end consumer’s economic interests would suffer on that account. As to the deadlines for reimbursements in case of cancelled transport services , we consider that such deadlines should be aligned as much as possible between different transportation types (e.g . flight, train, bus) . We believe it to be in the interests of consumer to have as simple and uniform reimbursements systems as possible, as this would create the premise where consumers would be more confident in standing for their rights. Similarly , it should be considered if those deadlines could be aligned with package travel as well , although we note that package travel with its multitude of services bundled together (transport, accommodation, rent, leisure etc) could very well justify the use of different deadlines. As regard to insolvency protection, we do not see the need to extend the system of package travel to transport services as we consider the risks of going insolvent in transport area much lower than that in travel sector . I n addition , transport service providers normally have their own assets which could cove r losses incurred by consumers. We are supportive of the idea to harmonize consumer protection rules for cancellation of services for all sectors in situation of “force majeure” (like C ovid -19). We believe it to be in the interests of consumer to have as simple and uniform systems as possible, as this would create the premise where consumers would be more confident in standing for their rights. EU consumer policy strategy priorities for medium-long term should be set on more effective enforcement of consumer rights by empowering them with stronger, quicker and affordable tools to ensure their rights are abided by. First and foremost, it is for the consumer s to stand for its their rights and if we are able to create as simple and understandable system as possible and we provide consumers with proper tools to foresee that those rights are uphold uph e ld , then market surveillance would be much more effective. In addition , EU wide market surveillance tools could be created in order to enhance enforcement of consumer rights. For example, the Commission could create “web crawlers” to screen online market places operating at EU for infringements and ask sellers to rectify the situation. In addition, priorities should include seeking co-operation agreements with large online market places th r ough which majority of products are sold to EU consumers similar ly to what has been done in the “Product Safety Pledge” . We agree with the statement that transparency is key in safeguarding consumer rights in the digital environment , hence we are supportive of providing clearer identification of sponsored content and clearer information on how offers and prices are personalised. In regard to personalised prices we consider transparen cy it important to be transparent on not only about regarding the use of such a technique but on also how it is used (i.e . provide info about the main parameters used and how those affect the price) . We believe that children and elderly people are and continue to be the most vulnerable consumer group as often is the case where those are the groups where many vulnerability sources tend to stack up: social isolation, personal health situation, insufficient poor IT digital and financial literacy, poor financial literacy, low education level, lack of practical knowledge or skills in understanding complex contract conditions and offers etc – these are all somewhat age related vulnerability sources. Empowering the consumer for the green transition In our opinion, t he most relevant obstacles for enhanced consumer participation in the circular economy and towards more sustainable consumption behaviour are trustworthiness of environmental claims, general disinterest in adopting more sustainable consumption behaviour and perceived higher prices of environmentally - friendly products compare d to less environmentally - f r iendly alternatives. In order to elevate trustworthiness of environmental claims and in order to empower consumers to play assume a stronger role in the green transition we consider it necessary to have as simple and as uniform set of rules as possible for providing information about environmental claims. Therefore, t ransparency in relation to environmental claims, providing a stronger protection against greenwashing (i.e . claims on environmental qualities of products or services that are exaggerated, too vague, false or impossible to prove) and raisi ng consumers’ awareness about the ir role in circular economy and green transition are the prerequisites for consumers’ green transition. In order to enhance consumers’ participation in the circular economy and to choose sustainable products consumers should be provided with information about “expected” product lifespan, information about the reparability of the product and information (e.g . a label/logo) vouching for the sustainability of the product. Furthermore, enforcement action could be stepped up by providing more EU-funded training for enforcement authorit ies and judges on these matters, by providing detailed EU guidance for enforcement bodies against greenwashing and obsolescence practices and on enforcing consumer information rules and by setting up at EU level an advisory system to ensure sustainability claims on products are based on reliable information ( similar to the system set up in food sector for nutritional claims) . Review of the Directive on credit agreements for consumers (2008/48/EC) D irectives scope should be extended to credits below EUR 200 , credits above EUR 75 000 for purposes other than the renovation of residential immovable property and loans obtained by individuals form other individuals, through online platforms (peer-to-peer lending). Obligation to provide consumers with standard information at pre-contractual stage is highly valuable as it allows consumers to compare different credit offers. Before signing a contract consumers shou ld be given ample sufficient time should be left for consumers to get acquainted with pre-contractual information. We consider that at least one day before contract signature should suffice. Considerations should be given to reducing the amount of information to be given in the advertisement s hence we are not supportive of ideas that move to the opposite direction, such as the idea to set up an obligation to accompany advertisements with warning messages on the implications of the credit decision such as “borrowing money also costs money”. Here, obligations in of providing regard pre-contractual information suffice. Upholding the requirements of the directive ’ s obligations vis-à-vis responsible lending practices are highly valuable from the perspective of safeguarding the economic interest of consumers. Therefore, we support the are supportive of the ideas to introduc e tion of binding principles on responsible lending such as an obligation to take into account consider target consumers’ interest s , objectives and characteristics when designing credit products and to harmonise the creditworthiness assessment process across Member States. Hence , we agree that EU law should provide for common standards on data/methodology for creditworthiness assessments. Furthermore, in relation to online credit offers , we find that there should be measures put in place in order to prevent online credit purchasing without enough sufficient time for reflection (e.g . “one-click” credit obtained “in one-click ” ) and the consumer should be give get n a warning message about the implications of the credit decision. Review of the Directive on General Product Safety (2001/95/EC) In general, we consider that current GPSD rules are adequate to protect consumers. Nevertheless, legal definitions (such as “product”, “safe product” or “placing on the market”) should be reviewed in order to make it clea r whether and to what extent they apply to new technology products ( e.g connected devices). For example, when considering whether a product is safe the definition of a product in the GPSD should encompass also the software incorporated into it as the latter can make a difference in terms of judging if a product has a safety issue or not. The same is true in cases when software is already installed into the product when sold and in cases where software is downloaded into the device after it has been sold. The same applies to cases where software is updated or changed (for example evolved via use of AI) after they are sold, i.e these products should remain safe throughout their lifetime. We agree with the statement that online marketplaces that enable companies to sell to EU consumer should have a legal obligation to remove dangerous products listed on their websites when notified to them. At the same time, we agree that online marketplaces should prevent reappearance of those dangerous products in their listings once they have been removed, but we do not believe that such an obligation should be written in law as it would be very difficult or in some cases even impossible to enforce. We do not support the idea to oblige online marketplaces to identify products within their systems that likely do not comply with safety rules as such an obligation should be on the seller . Similarly, online marketplaces should not be obliged to inform consumers when a dangerous product has been removed from the marketplace. However, considering that sellers must have in their possession the information about to whom products have been sold, it should be their responsibility in cooperation with the producer to inform those consumers who have bought the defective product. We do not support the idea to force 3 rd country businesses to set up responsible persons established in the EU in order to sell their products to EU market as such an obligation should be reserved for high risk product categories such as those listed in the new enforcement regulation no 1020/2019. In our opinion it would be disproportionate to set up such a requirement to all products entering EU market. As to enforcement rules applicable to market surveillance , we consider it necessary to align those rules between harmonised and non-harmonised products as in terms on market surveillance actions it should not make a difference to which category a dangerous product specifically falls. A dangerous product is a dangerous product and hence the enforcement actions taken or tools available for market surveillance authorities should be the same. As a final note, one of the EU priorities in the product safety area should be on the enhancement of cooperation between the EU market surveillance authorities and large (online) marketplaces through which majority of products are sold to EU consumers. Here, the European Commission led initiative “Product Safety Pledge” is highly appreciated and valuable and should be continued. However, the value of such an undertaking lies in the cooperation and hence we would not like to see developments moving towards writing the agreement into EU law. In addition, EU wide market surveillance tools should be created in order to enhance enforcement of product safety rules. For example, the Commission could create “web crawlers” to screen online sales for infringements, ask sellers to rectify the situation and in case further action is needed, inform relevant market surveillance authorities in respective Member States. Saatja: Jaana Tael </o=Majandus-Teede-Sideministeerium/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=4f1059e7cbe2406391619a337> Saaja: 'Riina Piliste', Risto Jõgi, Ingrid Teinemaa, Birgit Valgus, Kaur Kajak Teema: RE: Komisjoni avalik konsultatsioon Tere, Vaatasime koos tehnikaosakonnaga seisukohad üle, pisikesed kommentaarid lisatud dokumendis. Oleme teiega samal nõul. Tooteohutuse osas meil täiendusi ei ole. Jõudu, Jaana From: Riina Piliste <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 4:18 PM To: Kristiina Koll <[email protected]>; Kaidi Urgas <[email protected]>; Paula Etti <[email protected]>; Thomas Auväärt <[email protected]>; Jaana Tael <[email protected]>; Ingrid Teinemaa <[email protected]>; Mari Puusaag-Tamm <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Taivo Linnamägi <[email protected]>; Indrek Laineveer <[email protected]>; Pille Ossul <[email protected]> Cc: Thea Palm <[email protected]>; Risto Jõgi <[email protected]>; Merike Ring <[email protected]>; Kati Kikas <[email protected]>; Evelin Kuuse <[email protected]> Subject: Komisjoni avalik konsultatsioon Tere! Komisjon on algatanud avaliku konsultatsiooni EL uue tarbijakaitse tegevuskava kohta, mille eesmärgiks on koguda sisendit Komisjoni 4 uue algatuse jaoks, mis väljenduvad küsimustiku neljas osas: I. uus Euroopa tarbijakaitse tegevuskava; II. tarbijate võimestamine üleminekul rohelisele majandusele; III. tarbijakrediidilepinguid käsitleva direktiivi (2008/48/EÜ) läbivaatamine; IV. üldise tooteohutuse direktiivi (2001/95/EÜ) läbivaatamine Konsultatsioonile vastamine on MKM ülesanne ja oleme koostanud Komisjonile saatmiseks esialgse positsioonipaberi, mille kohta ootaksime teie täiendusi, parandusi ja kommentaare puutumuses olevate teemade kohta 28.augustiks. Tagasiside võib saata e-posti aadressile [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> või [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ). Tervitades, Riina Piliste Toote ohutuse ja tarbijakaitse talituse nõunik 6256420