Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Risks in Development of EU Consumer Protection Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Legal Risks in EU Law

Abstract

The chapter analyses the legal development of the EU consumer protection law from the perspective of legal risks. It focuses on chosen key issues such as the variations in the level of harmonization across different EU consumer protection directives, the effectiveness of consumer protection instruments, the fragmentary approach to the legislative regulation of the EU consumer protection acquis etc. All these important issues affect adversely two main goals accentuated by the preambles of the EU consumer protection directives, namely, the achievement of a high level of consumer protection and the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The development of the EU consumer protection law demonstrates that the EU institutions engaged in the management of legal risks in the area of consumer protection attributed significantly to a development of new risks thereby increasing legal uncertainty in B2C relations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Council Resolution of 14 April 1975 on a Preliminary Programme of the European Economic Community for a Consumer Protection and Information Policy, OJ C 92/1 established five key consumer rights: the right to protection of health and safety; the right to protection of economic interests; the right of redress; the right to information and education; the right of representation (the right to be heard).

  2. 2.

    According to Art. 12 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ C 326 of 26 October 2012 consumer protection is a horizontal policy, which “requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities”.

  3. 3.

    See Art. 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326/391 of 26 October 2012: “Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection”. See also the commentary to this provision in EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights/Réseau UE d’Experts Indépendants en Matière de Droits Fondamentaux 2006, pp. 318 et seq. See comments of Weatherill (2013), p. 252 on the relevance of Case C-544/10, Deutsches Weintor, EU:C:2012:526.

  4. 4.

    According to Art. 26(2) TFEU “the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties”.

  5. 5.

    Initially, the Founding Treaties were focused on public law aspects linked with the removal of obstacles to the internal market and not to private law aspects dealing with the relations of private parties acting on the internal market. For example, the concept of prohibition of measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions was primarily reserved for MS public law provisions (e.g. import inspections and controls, national type approvals, advertisement campaigns for national products (Case C-249/81, Commission v Ireland (Buy Irish) [1982] ECR 04005), sectoral prohibition on road transport, labelling of products (Case C-470/93, Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln e.V. v Mars [1995] ECR I-01923), language requirements etc.). However, the ECJ/CJEU case law and legal theory confirm that numerous differences between MS private law provisions can also violate fundamental freedoms and consequently represent a serious barrier to the goal of the establishment and functioning of the internal market of the EU (e.g. Case C-302/97, Konle [1999] ECR I-3099 or Case C-222/97, Trummer and Mayer [1999] ECR I-1661). As stated by Lando (2000), p. 61: “The existing variety of contract laws in Europe may be regarded as a non-tariff barrier to trade.”

  6. 6.

    Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR I-649, para. 8.

  7. 7.

    The common goal of both means of integration is the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Negative integration is established by the EU primary and secondary law, including the ECJ/CJEU case law and consists of therein contained prohibitions to violations of the EU law. To such provisions belong for example the EU primary law provisions on prohibition of discrimination, provisions on the customs union and fundamental freedoms and provisions on fair market competition. Rodin and Ćapeta (2010), p. 84, define negative integration as a removal of trade barriers between the MS by non-application of national legal rules creating these barriers. A violation of fundamental freedoms through national provisions of the MS is prohibited by the primary law itself, without the regulation of special prohibitions in secondary law of the EU. Exceptions can be found in Arts. 36, 51–52, 62 in connection with 51–54 TFEU. According to the Dassonville formula “[…] all trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions” and are prohibited by the TFEU provisions on the free movement of goods. See Case C-8/74, Dassonville [1974] ECR I-837. Thereby, the negative integration is limiting the legislative freedom of the MS. On the other hand, the positive integration concerns the adoption of legal acts having impact on the internal market.

  8. 8.

    In the Cassis de Dijon case the ECJ clarified that “obstacles to movement within the Community resulting from disparities between the national laws relating to the marketing of the products in question must be accepted in so far as those provisions may be recognized as being necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements,” i.e. to satisfy “requirements [that] serve a purpose which is in the general interest and such as to take precedence over the requirements of the free movement of goods, which constitutes one of the fundamental rules of the Community”. To these interests belong among others tax surveillance, protection of public health, fairness in commercial transactions but also consumer protection. See Case C-120/78, Rewe-Zentral v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon) [1979] ECR I-649, paras. 8 and 14.

  9. 9.

    See Lando (2000), p. 61: “The Union of today is an economic community. Its purpose is the free flow of goods, persons, services and capital. (…) All of these move by way of contracts. It should, therefore, be made easier to conclude and perform contracts and to calculate contract risks. […] Foreign laws are often difficult for the businessmen and their local lawyers to understand. They may keep him away from foreign markets in Europe.”

  10. 10.

    Consult the official web-page of the European Commission, Consumers at: http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/index_en.htm and the EU Consumer Law Acquis Database at: http://www.eu-consumer-law.org/.

  11. 11.

    For numerous definitions of legal risk see Mahler (2007), p. 4: “some writers argue that legal risk is a rather loose category, which does not need to be defined, and which is essentially context-dependent”.

  12. 12.

    Mahler (2007), p. 21. According to UNIDROIT Explanatory Notes on Preliminary Draft Convention on Harmonised Substantive Rules Regarding Securities Held With An Intermediary, Rome, 2004, p. 7 “legal risk commonly refers to a situation where the applicable law does not provide for a predictable and sound solution” and “might also refer to situations where the answer provided by the applicable law does not fit the market reality, or where the law does unnecessarily complicates or burdens a transaction”.

  13. 13.

    Case C-15/81, Schul [1982] ECR I-1409, para. 33.

  14. 14.

    The results of the Eurobarometer Analytical Reports on European contract law in consumer transactions and on European contract law in business-to-business transactions of 2011 demonstrate that 49 % of participants consider that contract law differences are affecting them less than practical difficulties. To the latter belong administrative and formal requirements (e.g. licensing, registration procedures), language barriers (e.g. communication problems, translating documents, etc.), cultural differences, tax regulations, cross-border delivery problems etc. To the most important contract law related obstacles belong the difficulties in finding out about the provisions of a foreign consumer contract law and the need to adapt to the diverse consumer contract laws across the EU. According to the Expert Group’s Feasibility Study on European Contract Law of 3 May 2011 available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/feasibility_study_final.pdf: “Businesses and consumers wishing to carry out cross-border transactions must reckon with the existence of different national contract laws when operating in the internal market. This can lead to additional transaction costs, increased legal uncertainty for businesses and lack of consumer confidence and thus cause obstacles to cross-border trade”. On the contradictory results of the Eurobarometer Analytical Reports see Halson and Campbell (2013), pp. 112–113.

  15. 15.

    Although there is no unique definition, the approximation of laws can be understood as the approximation of MS legal acts to standards established at the Union level both by removal or minimizing of the differences between effective national acts and by adoption of new proposals not existing in national law. It can be achieved by legislative activity, ECJ/CJEU case law and the work of scientific groups and the legal doctrine. Within the TFEU, the notion of “approximation” is equalized with the one of “harmonization”, despite different legal theory approaches about the meaning of these terms. The approximation of laws is to be distinguished from the unification of laws which aims at the uniformity of MS legal acts. Examples of the unification of laws at the Union level are the Brussels I Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 27.9.1968, OJ L 1972/299 and the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, 9 October 1980, OJ L 266, that were both taken over into Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ EC L 2001/12 and Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 2008/177. On the complexity of these terms see Gutman (2014), pp. 27 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Reich (2000), pp. 504 et seq. divides arguments existing in legal doctrine into “Systemargument”, “Inkonsistenzargument” and “black-box-Argument”. The first one criticises the fragmentary character of European consumer law, the second one the contradictions in the EU legislators’ work and the third one the disintegrative function of the ECJ interpretation of EU law in relation to national traditions.

  17. 17.

    Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, 25.3.1957, not published in OJ.

  18. 18.

    Single European Act, OJ 1987 L 169/14 of 29.6.1987.

  19. 19.

    This legal ground received less attention in EU consumer protection law. Examples of directives adopted upon it are Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, OJ L 21/29 and repealed Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit OJ L 42/48. The Treaty of Lisbon, OJ C 306, 17.12.2007, reordered positions of ex Arts. 94 and 95 TEC and by renummerating ex Art. 94 TEC into Art. 115 TFEU it placed it behind the more important ex Art. 95 TEC that became Art. 114 TFEU.

  20. 20.

    According to the current wording of this provision “if action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.[…]” (Art. 352(1) TFEU). See Case C-436/03, Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-03733, para. 36: “In that regard, Article 308 EC may be used as the legal basis for a measure only where no other provision of the Treaty gives the Community institutions the necessary power to adopt it […]”.

  21. 21.

    Completing the Internal Market: White Paper from the Commission to the European Council, Milan, 28–29 June 1985, COM(85) 310, June 1985. See Part Two: The Removal of Technical Barriers, No. 1, pp. 18 et seq.

  22. 22.

    Treaty on European Union, OJ C 191, 7.2.1992.

  23. 23.

    According to the current wording of Art. 169(2) TFEU “the Union shall contribute to the attainment of the objectives referred to in paragraph 1 through: (a) measures adopted pursuant to Article 114 in the context of the completion of the internal market; (b) measures which support, supplement and monitor the policy pursued by the Member States”. Objectives protected under para. 1 include the protection of health, safety and economic interests of consumers, the promotion of their right to information, education and to organise themselves in order to safeguard their interests.

  24. 24.

    According to Art. 114(1) TFEU “save where otherwise provided in the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply for the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 26” i.e. in the provision regulating the internal market. In accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee the European Parliament and the Council adopt approximation measures which have as their objective the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Pursuant to Art. 115 TFEU directives will be issued unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure if directly affecting the establishment or functioning of the internal market. Different than the Art. 352 TFEU, ex Art. 308 TEC and ex ex Art. 235 TEEC provided for the adoption of approximation measures “if action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community […]”.

  25. 25.

    Case C-376/98, Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419 (Tobacco Advertising I) and Case C-491/01, British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453 (Tobacco Advertising II).

  26. 26.

    Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419, para. 83.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., para. 84.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., paras. 95 and 106. Under para. 107 the Community legislature may not rely on Art. 100a for elimination of the smallest distortions of competition.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para. 86.

  30. 30.

    See recital 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, OJ L 171/12, 7.7.1999; recitals 2 and 3 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ L 095/29, 21.4.1993; see recital 4 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23. April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC OJ L 133/66, 22.5.2008; see recitals 4 and 5 of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 304/64, 22.11.2011 etc.

  31. 31.

    The same doubts are expressed by many authors. See also the analysis by Schütze (2014), pp. 228 et seq.

  32. 32.

    Schütze (2014), para. 84.

  33. 33.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, COM(2011) 635 final, Brussels, 11 October 2011.

  34. 34.

    According to Case C-436/03, Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-3733, para. 44: “[…] the contested regulation, which leaves unchanged the different national laws already in existence, cannot be regarded as aiming to approximate the laws of the Member States […]”. See also Hesselink et al. (2007), p. 7.

  35. 35.

    In that sense the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward, COM(2004) 651 final, Brussels, 11.10.2004, Annex II: “An optional instrument should only contain those areas of contract law, whether general or specific to certain contracts, which clearly contribute to addressing identified problems, such as barriers to the smooth functioning of the internal market.” A more detailed analysis by Mišćenić (2012), pp. 729 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 60/34 of 28 February 2014.

  37. 37.

    Recital 2 of the MCD recognises the differences of the MS’ laws regarding the conduct of business in the granting of credit agreements and in the regulation and supervision of credit intermediaries and of non-credit institutions providing such credit agreements. Further on, it argues that “[…] such differences create obstacles that restrict the level of cross-border activity on the supply and demand sides, thus reducing competition and choice in the market, raising the cost of lending for providers and even preventing them from doing business” […]. See also Mišćenić (2014b), pp. 219 et seq.

  38. 38.

    See Explanatory Memorandum of the CESL, p. 5, No. 2.

  39. 39.

    Recital 1 of the CESL.

  40. 40.

    Recital 82 of the MCD.

  41. 41.

    Ibid.: “Since the objective of this Directive, namely the creation of an efficient and competitive internal market […] whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of the effectiveness of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union”.

  42. 42.

    According to Art. 4(2) TFEU the Union shares competences with the MS in the area of internal market (lit. a) and of consumer protection (lit. f). This means that the Union and the MS may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in these areas (Art. 2(2) TFEU). However, the MS shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised or has decided to cease exercising its competence (Art. 2(2) TFEU).

  43. 43.

    Pursuant to Art. 5(1) TEU “the limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral”, while “the use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality”.

  44. 44.

    Art. 5(3) TEU. The provision goes further on by prescribing the duty of the Union’s institutions to apply the principle as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of national Parliaments to ensure compliance with the principle in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol. See Protocol (No. 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, OJ C 83/206, 30.3.2010.

  45. 45.

    Art. 5(4) TEU.

  46. 46.

    The Treaty of Lisbon has strengthened the role of both the national parliaments and the CJEU in monitoring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Under Arts. 5(3) and 12 TEU national parliaments monitor compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in Protocol No 2. on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Under this procedure national parliaments have 8 weeks from the date of forwarding of a draft legislative act to submit a reasoned opinion why they consider that a draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity by using so-called yellow (‘negative’ opinions represent at least one-third of the votes allocated to the national parliaments) or red/orange (in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure, ‘negative’ opinions represent at least a simple majority of the votes allocated to national parliaments) card procedure. Compliance with the principle of subsidiarity may also be reviewed after adoption of the legislative act by means of a legal action brought before the CJEU (e.g. Art. 263 TFEU on action for annulment). Consult Fact Sheets on the European Union – 2015, The Principle of Subsidiarity, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.2.2.pdf.

  47. 47.

    E.g. recital 65 of the Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights, recital 82 of the MCD, Explanatory Memorandum (p. 10) and recital 10 of the CESL, recital 23 of the Directive 2008/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 January 2009 on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts, OJ L 33/10 etc.

  48. 48.

    Schütze (2009), pp. 525 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Recital 82 of the MCD. See Explanatory Memorandum of the CESL, p. 5: “There are significant differences between the contract laws in the MS. The Union initially started to regulate in the field of contract law by means of minimum harmonisation Directives adopted in the field of consumer protection law. The minimum harmonisation approach meant that Member States had the possibility to maintain or introduce stricter mandatory requirements than those provided for in the acquis. In practice, this approach has led to divergent solutions in the Member States even in areas which were harmonised at Union level.”

  50. 50.

    See Explanatory Memorandum of the CESL, p. 2: “Differences in contract law between Member States hinder traders and consumers who want to engage in cross-border trade within the internal market.” The obstacles which stem from these differences dissuade traders, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in particular, from entering cross border trade or expanding to new Member States’ markets. Consumers are hindered from accessing products offered by traders in other Member States.”

  51. 51.

    Although the European legislation and literature are often treating them as synonyms, there is an essential difference between the notion of “maximum” harmonization concerning the level of harmonization and the one of “full” harmonization concerning its scope. According to Josipović different than maximum harmonization, “harmonization is full when the directive covers all possible aspects of some legal concept or legal domain”. See Josipović (2010), p. 209. Due to this reason the EU legislator and theory nowadays speak about “targeted full harmonization” directives that are “targeting” the regulation and fully harmonizing only certain chosen matters presenting barriers to traders and consumers willing to enter cross-border transactions.

  52. 52.

    The shift from minimum to full harmonization was announced in the Communication from the Commission of 7 May 2002 to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – “Consumer Policy Strategy 2000–2006”, COM (2002) 208 final, OJ C137/2 and the first results came in form of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, OJ L 271/16 and Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149/22. However, in Case C-52/00, Commission v France [2002] ECR I-3827 and Case C-183/00, González Sánchez [2002] ECR I-3901 the ECJ confirmed the full harmonization character of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, OJ L 210/29.

  53. 53.

    See Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Pursuant to Art. 3(4) “Member States may decide not to apply this Directive or not to maintain or introduce corresponding national provisions to off-premises contracts for which the payment to be made by the consumer does not exceed EUR 50. MS may define a lower value in their national legislation.” Art. 5(3) contains an option for the MS regarding information requirements for contracts other than distance or off-premises contracts according to which “Member States shall not be required to apply paragraph 1 to contracts which involve day-to-day transactions and which are performed immediately at the time of their conclusion.” Art. 5(4) contains a minimum harmonisation clause pursuant to which “Member States may adopt or maintain additional pre-contractual information requirements for contracts to which this Article applies.”

  54. 54.

    It is important to notice that this was done by recitals of the directives preambles. See recital 10 of the CCD or recital 13 of the CRD. As to the question of legal force and of the hierarchy between provisions contained in preambles and main regulatory texts of directives, the CJEU stated in Case C-602/10, SC Volksbank România EU:C:2012:443, para. 40, that “is also clear from recital 10 in the preamble to Directive 2008/48, the Member States may, in accordance with European Union law, apply provisions of that directive to areas not covered by its scope”.

  55. 55.

    See the chapter “Regelungsintensität der Verbraucherrichtlinien: Mindest v Maximalharmonisierung” in: Čikara (2010), pp. 36 et seq.

  56. 56.

    Art. 2(1) of the MCD prescribes that “this Directive shall not preclude Member States from maintaining or introducing more stringent provisions in order to protect consumers, provided that such provisions are consistent with their obligations under Union law”. According to Art. 2(2) of the MCD the “Member States shall not maintain or introduce in their national law provisions diverging from those laid down in Article 14(2) and Annex II Part A with regard to standard pre-contractual information through a European Standardised Information Sheet (ESIS) and Article 17(1) to (5), (7) and (8) and Annex I with regard to a common, consistent Union standard for the calculation of the annual percentage rate of charge (APRC)”. However, MS should be allowed to maintain or introduce more stringent provisions with regard to instructions for completing the ESIS and for areas not covered by the MCD. MS are free to maintain or introduce national law provisions (e.g. concerning validity of credit agreements, property law, land registration, contractual information and post-contractual issues) (recitals 7 and 9 of the preamble).

  57. 57.

    With regard to foreign currency loans, pursuant to Art. 23(1) of the MCD, MS shall ensure the existence of an appropriate regulatory framework at the time of the credit agreement conclusion to at least ensure that the consumer has a right to convert the foreign into an alternative currency under specified conditions or that there are other arrangements in place to limit the exchange rate risk to which the consumer is exposed under the credit agreement. The following paragraph further elaborates the alternative currency, while there is no explanation or suggestion of possible other arrangements for limiting the exchange rate risk.

  58. 58.

    Case C-84/94, United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, para. 79 and Case C-233/94, Germany v Parliament and Council [1997] ECR I-2405. The ECJ found that compliance with the principle of subsidiarity was one of the conditions covered by the requirement to state the reasons for Community acts which is met if it is clear from reading the recitals that the principle has been complied with. On the topic of the analytical framework of ECJ/CJEU judicial review of the principle of subsidiarity very detailed are Groussot and Bogojević (2014), pp. 244 et seq.

  59. 59.

    See the chapter “Schutzbestimmungen der Verbraucherrichtlinien” in: Čikara (2010), pp. 39 et seq.

  60. 60.

    Both legal theory and CJEU/ECJ case law recognize intellectual and economic inferiority of consumers towards traders. See Case C-89/91, Shearson Lehmann Hutton v TVB [1993] ECR I-139, para. 18: “[…] the consumer as the party deemed to be economically weaker and less experienced in legal matters than the other party to the contract […]”. See Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-04941, para. 25: “[…] the consumer is in a weak position vis-à-vis the seller or supplier, as regards both his bargaining power and his level of knowledge […]”. See Case C-168/05, Mostaza Claro [2006] ECR I-10421, para. 25; Case C-137/08, VB Pénzügyi Lízing [2010] ECR I-10847 para. 22; Case C-26/13, Kásler Káslerné Rábai, EU:C:2014:282, para. 39. and numerous other cases. See also Kemper (1994), pp. 32 et seq.

  61. 61.

    Pursuant to Grundmann et al. (2001), p. 325, the core of private or party autonomy lies in the capacity to enter into contracts and to negotiate for specific contract terms and in this sense it is closely related to freedom of contract being an institutional freedom granted to both parties and free from state interventions against their intent. These two basic civil law principles are in ECJ/CJEU case law recognized as principles common to MS legal traditions and in accordance with EU goals. Due to different MS’ legal traditions regarding some of the principles (such as “pacta sunt servanda” in the continental or common law system) it is not quite clear which understanding of the concept is considered to be common. See Case C-162/96, Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1998] ECR I-3655. For example, private autonomy and freedom of contract are explicitly recognized in Art. 1 of the Annex I of the CESL. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights recognizes them indirectly by Art. 15 on freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work, Art. 16 on freedom to conduct a business and Art. 17 on right to property.

  62. 62.

    See Case C-26/13, Kásler and Káslerné Rábai, EU:C:2014:282, para. 82: “[…] objective of Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, since, according to settled case-law, that provision is intended to substitute for the formal balance established by the contract between the rights and obligations of the parties real balance re-establishing equality between them […]”. See also Case C-453/10, Pereničová and Perenič, EU:C:2012:144, para. 31; CJEU Case C-618/10, Banco Español de Crédito, EU:C:2012:349, para. 40.

  63. 63.

    Nowadays it is widely accepted that private autonomy cannot be understood in mere formal, but also in a material sense. In situations where the self-determination of private parties is prevented due to certain economic or intellectual conditions the legislator can intervene in contractual relations if this is necessary for the protection of the weaker party to the contract and for the achievement of a true and material balance of the parties’ rights and obligations. See Čikara (2009), pp. 45 et seq.

  64. 64.

    Leczykiewicz and Weatherill (2013), p. 7: “[…] it comes as no surprise that arguments against the intervention of EU law into national private laws are really arguments for the protection of private autonomy […]”.

  65. 65.

    With regard to fundamental concepts of consumer and trader as instrumental for the application of the consumer directives there is no uniform definition of either term in EU consumer protection directives. Depending on the subject matter some of them use the term consumer, person, main contractor etc. or trader, seller, supplier, vendor, retailer etc. With regard to different terminological and conceptual definitions and rules on basic consumer rights, such as the right of withdrawal, consult the EU Consumer Law Acquis Database at: http://www.eu-consumer-law.org.

  66. 66.

    The fact that the consistency was needed both at the conceptual and terminological level was recognized by numerous EU communications and resolutions. In 2004 the Commission initiated the process of reviewing the EU consumer protection acquis intending to achieve its rationalization, clarification and modernization. One of its results is the CRD, based on the horizontal and full targeted harmonization approach, which amends Directives 93/13 and 99/44 and repeals and replaces Directives 85/577 and 97/7. See the Communication from the Commission of 7 May 2002 to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – “Consumer Policy Strategy 2000–2006”, COM (2002) 208 final, OJ C137/2 explicitly mentioning “a need to review and reform existing EU consumer protection directives”. See also the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on European contract law, COM(2001) 398 final, OJ C 255 containing four options for contract law approximation and for increasing the quality of consumer protection legislation. Further on: Communication from the Commission of 12 February 2003 to the European Parliament and the Council – A more coherent European contract law – An action plan COM(2003) 68 final, OJ C 63; Communication from the Commission of 11 October 2004 to the European Parliament and the Council – European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward, COM(2004)651 final; Commission Report of 23 September 2005: First Annual Progress Report on European Contract Law and the Acquis Review, COM(2005)456 final; European Parliament Resolution of 23 March 2006 on European Contract Law and the Revision of the Acquis: The Way Forward [2006] OJ C292E/109; European Parliament Resolution of 7 September 2006 on European Contract Law [2006] OJ C305E/247; Commission Report of 25 July 2007: Second Progress Report on the Common Frame of Reference, COM(2007) 447 final; Commission Green Paper on Revision of the Consumer Contract Law Acquis of 7 February 2007, COM (2006) 744 final; Green Paper from the Commission of 1 July 2010 on Policy Options for Progress Towards a European Contract Law for Consumers and Businesses, COM(2010)348; Expert Group’s Feasibility Study on European Contract Law of 3 May 2011 and many others.

  67. 67.

    See Martinek (2000), p. 518: “Ein aufgeklärter Konsument kann sich, sofern er nur hinreichende Informationen erhalten hat, weitgehend selbst schützen und seine Privatautonomie sowohl beim Abschluss wie auch beim Inhalt des Vertrages wahren”. See also the chapter “Informationspflichten” in: Čikara (2010), pp. 41 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Case C-210/96, Gut Springenheide and Tusky v Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt [1998] ECR I-4657, para. 31; Case C-470/93, Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln e.V. v Mars [1995] ECR I-01923, para 24; Case C-220/98, Estée Lauder [2000] ECR I-117; Case C-446/07, Severi [2009] ECR I-08041, para 62. The image of the average consumer differs when it comes to financial services. See Case C-15/78, Société générale alsacienne de banque v Koestler [1978] ECR I-1971, para. 2; Case C-384/93, Alpine Investments v Minister van Financiën [1995] ECR I-1141. See Stuyck (2014).

  69. 69.

    Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, OJ L 271/16.

  70. 70.

    Case C-449/13, CA Consumer Finance, EU:C:2014:2464, para. 32: “[…] the provisions of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted to the effect that […] they preclude a court from having to find that, as a result of a standard term, a consumer has acknowledged that the creditor’s pre-contractual obligations have been fully and correctly performed, with that term thereby resulting in a reversal of the burden of proving the performance of those obligations such as to undermine the effectiveness of the rights conferred by Directive 2008/48”.

  71. 71.

    Repealed Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer with respect to contracts negotiated away from business premises, OJ L 372/31, used the term “right of cancellation” (Arts. 3–5). Art. 5 of the repealed Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of purchasers with respect to certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis, OJ L 280/83, used “right to withdraw” and “right of cancellation” as synonyms.

  72. 72.

    Croatian first Consumer Protection Act (CPA), OG No. 96/03 and second CPA, OG RC Nos. 79/07, 125/07, 75/09, 79/09, 89/09, 133/09, 78/12 and 56/13 used the term “right to terminate the contract”, while the third and currently in force CPA, OG Nos. 41/14 uses the term “right of unilateral termination”. On the other hand, Art. 14 of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA), OG Nos. 75/09, 112/12, 143/13, 147/13-corrigendum and 9/15 uses the term “right of withdrawal”. More in detail Šarčević and Čikara (2009), pp. 204–205.

  73. 73.

    Bar et al. (2009), p. 569, define the right to withdraw from a contract as “a right to terminate the legal relationship arising from the contract […], without having to give any reason for so doing and without incurring any liability for non-performance […]”. Nevertheless, DCFR makes a clear distinction between the two concepts in further provisions (2008: 120–124, 163–165) as does the CRD in its Art. 12.

  74. 74.

    Case C-489/07, Messner [2009] ECR I-7315, paras. 23 and 24.

  75. 75.

    As rightly pointed out by Šarčević and Čikara (2009), p. 209 “if an adequate national term exists, translators are obliged to use it, instead of creating a meaningless literal translation”. On negative implications of the copy-paste transposition technique see Łazowski and Blockmans (2014), pp. 119 et seq.

  76. 76.

    Pursuant to Art. 22(1) “insofar as this Directive contains harmonised provisions, Member States may not maintain or introduce in their national law provisions diverging from those laid down in this Directive”. However, under recital 17 of the CCD “Member States should therefore remain free to maintain or introduce additional obligations incumbent on credit intermediaries […]”. According to recital 10 of the CCD “A Member State could thereby maintain or introduce national legislation corresponding to the provisions of this Directive or certain of its provisions on credit agreements outside the scope of this Directive […]”.

  77. 77.

    On the transposition of these directives in the EU MS consult the EU Consumer Law Acquis Database at: http://www.eu-consumer-law.org. See also Čađenović et al. (2010), pp. 557 et seq.

  78. 78.

    Schulte-Nölke (2009), p. 133.

  79. 79.

    On the similar approach of the Croatian legislator see Mišćenić (2014a), p. 279.

  80. 80.

    Art. 19(1) TEU. Pursuant to Art. 2 TEU, the Union is founded on the values of respect for inter alia “rule of law”. See also Case C-294/83, Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR I-1339, para. 23: “[…] the European Economic Community is a Community based on the rule of law, inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the question whether the measures adopted by them are in conformity with the basic constitutional charter, the Treaty […]”.

  81. 81.

    Art. 267 TFEU (ex Art. 234 TEC).

  82. 82.

    The principle of direct effect enables natural and legal persons the protection of rights deriving from EU law before courts and other state authorities by invoking the provisions of EU law having direct effect. The established CJEU/ECJ case law developed criteria for the vertical direct effect of Treaty provisions, regulations and directives, however, denying the horizontal direct effect of directives. According to this concept, individuals should not suffer due to MS violation of the EU law in form of late or erroneous transposition of directives. See Case C-41/74, Yvonne Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR I-1337; Case C-152/84, M.H. Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR I-723; Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl [1994] ECR I-3325; Case C-192/94, El Corte Inglés SA v Cristina Blázquez Rivero [1996] ECR I-1281; Case C-80/06, Carp [2007] ECR I-4473 etc. A detailed analysis on the pro and contra of the horizontal direct effect of directives is provided by Craig (2009), pp. 349 et seq.

  83. 83.

    Moreover, particular attention is to be given to the principle of autonomy of the EU legal order that demonstrates that the EU legal order is an autonomous one and is separated from the legal orders of the MS existing parallel to it. According to C-26/62 Van Gend en Loos v Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1: “[…] the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and the subjects of which comprise not only Member States but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of Member States, Community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. […]”.

  84. 84.

    See Case C-6/64, Costa v. E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR I-585; Case C-106/77, Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal [1978] ECR I-629; Case C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR I-1125.

  85. 85.

    Pursuant to the principle of the EU consistent interpretation national courts and all other public authorities are obliged to consider the whole body of national law and interpret it, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the EU directive that was supposed to be achieved by its transposition (effet utile). The legal basis for this duty existing also during the transposition period arises from Art. 4(3) TEU and Art. 288(3) TFEU. See Case C-14/83, Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR I-01891; Case C-106/89, Marleasing v Comercial Internacional de Alimentación [1990] ECR I-4135; Case C-91/92, Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325; Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-04941; Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01, Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-08835; Case C-105/03, Pupino [2005] ECR I-05285.

  86. 86.

    It is a principle of EU law pursuant to which MS are obliged to compensate loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law for which they can be held responsible. Criteria for state liability derive from Art. 246 TFEU (ex Art. 215 TEC) and established CJEU/ECJ case law. See Joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR I-05357; Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pęcheur [1996] ECR I-01029; Case C-5/94, Hedley Lomas [1996] ECR I-02553; Case C-224/01, Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239; Case C-173/03, Traghetti del Mediterraneo [2006] ECR I-05177 etc.

  87. 87.

    Case C-26/13 of 30 April 2014, Kásler and Káslerné Rábai, para. 86: “Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer cannot continue in existence after an unfair term has been deleted, that provision does not preclude a rule of national law enabling the national court to cure the invalidity of that term by substituting for it a supplementary provision of national law”.

  88. 88.

    Case C-618/10, Banco Español de Crédito, EU:C:2012:349, para. 89: “Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State […] which allows a national court, in the case where it finds that an unfair term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is void, to modify that contract by revising the content of that term”.

  89. 89.

    Ibid., paras. 62 and 65.

  90. 90.

    Ibid., para. 65.

  91. 91.

    Ibid., para. 69. Further on, the CJEU argued in para. 70 that that power could neither be based on Art. 8 of the UCTD, which leaves MS the option to adopt or retain, in the area covered by that directive, more stringent provisions compatible with EU law, inasmuch as they ensure a higher level of consumer protection.

  92. 92.

    Case C-26/13 of 30 April 2014, Kásler and Káslerné Rábai, para. 80.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., paras. 83 and 84.

  94. 94.

    Ibid., para. 82.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., para. 17. In the Kásler and Káslerné Rábai case concerning the mortgage loan denominated in a foreign currency, namely Swiss francs, secured by a guarantee in rem, the CJEU was deciding upon the unfairness of a not individually negotiated contract term stipulating the calculation of monthly repayment installments due on the basis of the selling rate of exchange, whereas the amount of the loan advanced was determined on the basis of the buying rate of exchange for that currency. The unfairness of the contract term in the case Banco Español de Crédito concerned the high rate of interest on late payments (29 %).

  96. 96.

    Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak delivered on 29.11.2011, EU:C:2011:788 in Case C-453/10, Pereničová and Perenič, EU:C:2012:144, para. 59.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., paras. 51 and 58.

  98. 98.

    Under Art. 47(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights “everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article”.

  99. 99.

    Heinze (2009), pp. 337 et seq.

  100. 100.

    Case C-32/12, Duarte Hueros, EU:C:2013:637, para. 38: “[…] because there is a significant risk that the consumer in question will not put forward an alternative claim which would seek, moreover, relief inferior to that sought in the principal claim, either on account of the particularly rigid requirement that the alternative claim be presented at the same time as the principal claim or because the consumer is unaware of, or does not appreciate, the extent of his rights […]”.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., para. 37: “It thus follows from those indications that, under the Spanish procedural system, a consumer who brings proceedings seeking only rescission of the contract for the sale of goods is definitively deprived of the possibility of benefitting from the right to seek an appropriate reduction in the price of those goods pursuant to Article 3(5) of Directive 1999/44 in the event that the court dealing with the dispute were to find that, in fact, the lack of conformity of those goods is minor, except where that application contains an alternative claim seeking that such a price reduction be granted.”

  102. 102.

    Ibid., para. 40. See also para. 39: “In those circumstances, it must be held that such procedural rules are liable to undermine the effectiveness of the consumer protection intended by the European Union legislature in so far as they do not allow the national court to recognise of its motion the right of the consumer to obtain an appropriate reduction in the price of the goods, even though that consumer is not entitled to refine his initial application or to bring a fresh action to that end.”

  103. 103.

    See supra, footnote 67.

  104. 104.

    See Explanatory Memorandum of the CESL, p. 3.

  105. 105.

    See Leczykiewicz and Weatherill (2013), p. 7.

References

  • Bar C et al (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law, Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Sellier, European Law Publishers, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Čađenović Z et al (2010) Transposition of proposed directive on consumer rights into the national laws of the participating states. In: Čađenović Z et al (eds) EU consumer contract law, civil law forum for South East Europe-collection of studies and analyses. Jugoslovenski pregled, Denona d.o.o., Beograd et al., pp 557–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Čikara E (2010) Gegenwart und Zukunft der Verbraucherkreditverträge in der EU und in Kroatien, Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 87/102/EWG und Richtlinie 2008/48/EG in das deutsche, österreichische und kroatische Verbraucherkreditrecht. LIT Verlag, Berlin et al.

    Google Scholar 

  • Čikara E (2009) Consumer protection in the light of private autonomy. In: Dávid R, Necká J, Sehnálek D (eds) Abstracts of the COFOLA Conference for Young Lawyers (COFOLA 2009): key points and ideas. Masaryk University, Muni Press, Brno, pp 45–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2009) The legal effect of directives: policy, rules and exceptions. Eur Law Rev 34(3):349–377

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights/Réseau UE d’Experts Indépendants en Matière de Droits Fondamentaux (2006) Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    Google Scholar 

  • Groussot X, Bogojević S (2014) Subsidiarity as a procedural safeguard to federalism In: Azoulai L (ed) The question of competence in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 234–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann S, Kerber W, Weatherill S (2001) Party autonomy and the role of information in the internal market. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin et al.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman K (2014) Constitutional foundations of European contract law: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Halson R, Campbell D (2013) Harmonisation and its discontents: a transaction costs critique of a European contract law. In: Devenney J, Kenny M (eds) The transformation of European private law: harmonisation, consolidation, codification or chaos? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge et al., pp 100–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze C (2009) Effektivitätsgrundsatz. In: Basedow J, Hopt KJ, Zimmermann R (eds) Handwörterbuch des Europäischen Privatrechts, vol I. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 337–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesselink MW, Rutgers JW, de Booys T (2007) The legal basis for an optional instrument on European contract law. Centre for the Study of European Contract Law, Working Paper Series 4:1–83. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091119

  • Josipović T (2010) Challenges to civil law harmonization by way of directives. In: Civil law forum for South East Europe, collection of studies and analyses, First Regional Conference, vol I. Cavtat, Beograd, pp 205–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper R (1994) Verbraucherschutzinstrumente. Nomos-Verl.-Ges., Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando O (2000) Optional or mandatory Europeanisation of contract law. ERPL 8:59–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Łazowski A, Blockmans S (2014) Between dream and reality: challenges to the legal rapprochement of the Western Balkans. In: Roman Petrov R, Van Elsuwege P (eds) Legislative approximation and application of EU law in the eastern neighbourhood of the European Union: towards a common regulatory space? Routledge, New York, pp 108–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (2013) Private law relationships and EU law. In: Leczykiewicz D, Weatherill S (eds) Involvement of EU law in private law relationships. Hart, Oxford, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahler T (2007) Defining legal risk. Proceedings of the conference “Commercial Contracting for Strategic Advantage - Potentials and Prospects”. Turku University of Applied Sciences. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1014364

  • Martinek M (2000) Unsystematische Überregulierung und kontrakontinentale Effekte im Europäischen Verbraucherschutzrecht oder: Weniger wäre mehr. In: Grundmann S (ed) Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 511–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Mišćenić E (2012) Europsko ugovorno pravo na putu od soft prema hard law, Osvrt na opcionalno zajedničko europsko pravo prodaje (CESL) (European contract law on the way from soft to hard law, review of the optional Common European Sales Law (CESL)). ZPFR 33(2):695–745

    Google Scholar 

  • Mišćenić E (2014a) Consumer protection law. In: Josipović T (ed) Introduction to the law of Croatia. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 279–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Mišćenić E (2014b) Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD): are consumers finally getting the protection they deserve? In: Slakoper Z (ed) Liber Amicorum in Honorem Vilim Gorenc. Pravni Fakultet Rijeka, Rijeka, pp 219–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich N (2000) Verbraucherrechte als- unverzichtbare – subjektive Rechte passive Marktbürger. In: Grundmann S (ed) Systembildung und Systemlücken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 481–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodin S, Ćapeta T (2010) Osnove prava Europske unije (Fundamentals of the European Union law). Narodne novine, Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

  • Šarčević S, Čikara E (2009) European vs. National Terminology in Croatian legislation transposing EU directives. In: Šarčević S (ed) Legal language in action: translation, terminology, drafting and procedural issues. Nakladni zavod Globus, Zagreb, pp 193–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Nölke H (2009) The transposition of European consumer directives into the national laws of the EU-Member States. Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht en handelspraktijken 4:133–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2009) Subsidiarity after Lisbon: reinforcing the safeguards of federalism? Camb Law J 68(3):525–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2014) Limits to the Union’s ‘Internal Market’ competence(s): constitutional comparisons. In: Azoulai L (ed) The question of competence in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 215–233

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stuyck J (2014) Consumer concepts in EU secondary law. Presented at an interdisciplinary workshop on “Consumer Images” organised by professors Klinck F. and Riesenhuber K. at the Law Faculty of the Ruhr Universität Bochum

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2013) EU consumer law and policy. Elgar European Law, Cheltenham et al.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Emilia Mišćenić

Authors
  1. Emilia Mišćenić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilia Mišćenić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Emilia Mišćenić

  2. Law Faculty, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France

    Aurélien Raccah

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mišćenić, E. (2016). Legal Risks in Development of EU Consumer Protection Law. In: Mišćenić, E., Raccah, A. (eds) Legal Risks in EU Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28596-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28595-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28596-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation