Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Withdrawal of the Common European Sales Law Proposal and the European Commission Proposal on Certain Aspects Concerning Contracts for the Online and Other Distance Sales of Goods

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of the Commercial Contract in Scholarship and Law Reform

Abstract

The chapter examines the reasons why the 2011 European Commission Proposal on Common European Sales Law (CESL) was so important for the formation of the contract at European level, and the reasons why it was withdrawn by the European Commission. It then focuses on the 2015 Online Sales of Goods (OSG) Proposal and demonstrates its drawbacks and its innovations in comparison with the CESL proposal and the existing European Union (EU) consumer legislation. In both cases, the reactions of the Member States and EU Institutions are discussed in order to show that the time has not come for a comprehensive body of an EU contract law, covering the full cycle of a contract. The chapter explains the importance of the Digital Single Market and the holistic approach taken by the European Commission in order to attain it. It presents the legal mosaic that may be created in comparison e.g. with the Consumer Sales Directive 1999/44/EC (CSD) and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU (CRD), the legal fragmentation of the markets and the role of the EU principle of subsidiarity. It analyses the innovative provisions of the draft OSG proposal and demonstrates their advantages and disadvantages. The author believes that flexibility is necessary during the final negotiation of the OSG text, so that the “play of 20 questions” stop and that this Directive of total harmonisation in most aspects of the formation of the consumer contract finally be adopted. Minimum harmonisation in one or two fundamental issues that otherwise would lower the level of consumer protection in many Member States, may be used in combination with a data basis in the e-justice portal of the European Commission as a less harmful measure. The author concludes that certain “compensating to the consumer” provisions of the proposal must be amended to strike a fair balance between the interests of the seller and the consumer, since the US experience has shown that the motivation of the seller is also very important for the growth in e-commerce. Last but not least, the author criticizes the attempted fragmentation of the contract types in several categories according to the method of sale. The reactions of the stakeholders and the EU institutions were so strong that the European Commission amended its OSG proposal on 31st October 2017, and extended the provisions of the initial OSG proposal to all types of consumer contracts, face-to-face and online ones, repealing Directive 1999/44/EC and establishing a true “CSD+” (word used by Professor H. Beale) which covers the majority of B2C transactions for the sale of goods.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    See for example Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises; Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts; and Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, O.J. L95/29 (21 April 1993).

  2. 2.

    Twigg-Flesner (2016), p. 4.

  3. 3.

    Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, O.J. L171/12 (7 July 1999).

  4. 4.

    European Commission (2014).

  5. 5.

    Art 6 h-k, 7 (3), 8(4) and 8(8) of the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EC. See Watson (2016), p. 252.

  6. 6.

    Beale (2016), p. 5.

  7. 7.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L12/1 (16 Jan 2001), Preamble para 13 and Art 16 para 1. Repealed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, O.J. L351/1 (20 Dec 2012), Preamble para 14, 18–19, Art 18 para 1.

  8. 8.

    Magnus and Mankowski (2007), p. 312; Anagnostopoulou (2012), pp. 627 ff.

  9. 9.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, O.J. L177/6 (4 July 2008), Preamble paras 23–25 and Art 6 para 2. Anagnostopoulou (2012), pp. 167 ff. For the meaning of the concept “direct its activities” see Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-190/11, Mühlleitner, ECLI:EU:C:2012:542. See Beale (2016), p. 5.

  10. 10.

    Beale (2016), p. 1.

  11. 11.

    Anagnostopoulou (2013a), pp. 121 ff.

  12. 12.

    European Commission (2011).

  13. 13.

    COM (2011) 635 at p. 8.

  14. 14.

    Basedow (2011), pp. 25–37.

  15. 15.

    Schulte-Nölke (2007, 2011).

  16. 16.

    Recommendation 2003/361 of the Commission concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, O.J. L124/36 (20 May 2003).

  17. 17.

    Lando and Beale (2000, 2003).

  18. 18.

    See http://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/main.htm.

  19. 19.

    Adopted in 11 April 1980 and entered into force on 1 January 1988 with 89 Contracting Parties in 2018. In the EU, only the United Kingdom, Ireland, Portugal and Malta have not signed CISG.

  20. 20.

    European Commission (2001) and European Commission (2003). The latter concluded in the aim of identifying areas in which the diversity of national legislation in the field of contract law may undermine the proper functioning of the internal market and the uniform application of Community law (p. 45).

  21. 21.

    Study Group on a European Civil Code/Research Group on EC Private Law (2009).

  22. 22.

    European Commission (2011) Preamble of the CESL Proposal COM(2011) 635, para. 6.

  23. 23.

    European Commission (2010). Action 13: Complementing the Consumer Rights Directive, Digital Agenda for Europe, at <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/fiche-dae.cfm?action_id=171&pillar_id=43&action=Action%2013%3A%20Complementing%20the%20Consumer%20Rights%20Directive>.

  24. 24.

    Protocol no 2 on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality attached to the Treaty establishing the European Union (Treaty of Lisbon) put into effect in December 2009.

  25. 25.

    According to Art 5 para 3 of the Treaty establishing the EU, “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.” Thus the principle of subsidiarity seeks to safeguard the ability of the Member States to take decisions and action.

  26. 26.

    Facts provided by Grigorova Ilieva (2013).

  27. 27.

    European Economic and Social Committee (2012). See also Cordero-Moss (2016), p. 487 ff.

  28. 28.

    See legislative procedure 2011/0284 (COD).

  29. 29.

    Council of the European Union, Press Release, 3135th Council meeting, Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels, 13–14 December 2011, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-11-491_en.htm?locale=en.

  30. 30.

    European Commission, Press Release, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_PRES-12-241_en.htm?locale=en.

  31. 31.

    Council of the European Union, Note from Presidency to Council, Brussels, June 1, 2012. Doc. 10611/12 JUSTCIV 210 CONSOM 85 CODEC 1496, DG D 2A, CG/BM/dd, p. 4. See also Cygan (2016), pp. 13–16.

  32. 32.

    See legislative procedure 2011/0284 (COD)—26.2.2014 Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading.

  33. 33.

    Posner (2012).

  34. 34.

    Basedow (2012) An EU law for cross-border sales only – its meaning and implications in open markets, Max Planck Private Law Research Paper No. 12/20, pp. 43–44.

  35. 35.

    Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations, O.J. L177/6 (4 July 2008). Fleischer (2012), pp. 235–252. See further arguments in Anagnostopoulou (2013b), pp. 293 ff.

  36. 36.

    Arroyo Amayuelas (2016), p. 485.

  37. 37.

    Beale (2016), p. 5.

  38. 38.

    Király (2015). pp. 31–32.

  39. 39.

    Mańko (2016), p. 2.

  40. 40.

    Smits (2016b), p. 2.

  41. 41.

    European Commission (2015a), pp. 4–5.

  42. 42.

    Mańko (2016), p. 2.

  43. 43.

    European Commission (2015c).

  44. 44.

    European Commission (2015d).

  45. 45.

    European Commission (2015e).

  46. 46.

    Council of the European Union, Presidency Progress Report no 6150/16 JUSTCIV 17 CONSOM 30 DIGIT 10 AUDIO 12 CODEC 165, available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/st-6150-2016-init/en/pdf.

  47. 47.

    See European Commission (2015c, f).

  48. 48.

    Beale (2016).

  49. 49.

    See Flash Eurobarometer 396 “Retailers’ attitudes towards cross-border trade and consumer protection” (2015) and Flash Eurobarometer 413 “Companies engaged in online activities” (2015) Breakdown by sector (B2C only), both cited by European Commission (2015e), p. 2.

  50. 50.

    Europe’s Digital Progress Report 2016—Use of internet, p. 4.

  51. 51.

    European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, Accompanying the document proposals for directives of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and (2) on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, SWD(2015) 274 final/2, 18 Dec 2015, p. 18.

    http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15251-2015-ADD-1-REV-1/en/pdf.

  52. 52.

    European Commission (2016c).

  53. 53.

    European Commission (2016a)

  54. 54.

    European Commission (2016d).

  55. 55.

    European Commission (2016b).

  56. 56.

    Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC, O.J. L165/63 (18 June 2013).

  57. 57.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, COM(2016) 283 final, 25 May 2016.

  58. 58.

    Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, entered into force on July 14, 2017.

  59. 59.

    European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposals for Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and (2) on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, SWD/2015/0274 final/2, p. 18.

  60. 60.

    Arroyo Amayelas (2016), p. 486.

  61. 61.

    European Commission (2015d), p. 2.

  62. 62.

    European Commission (2015c), p. 6.

  63. 63.

    Twigg-Flesner (2016), p. 9.

  64. 64.

    Smits (2016b), pp. 2–3.

  65. 65.

    See Sect. 4.2 below.

  66. 66.

    UK Parliament, point 5.39.

  67. 67.

    Beale (2016), p. 7.

  68. 68.

    European Commission (2015d), p. 11.

  69. 69.

    Smits (2016b), p. 2.

  70. 70.

    Beale (2016), p. 9.

  71. 71.

    Beale, p. 8. Smits (2016b), p. 3.

  72. 72.

    European Commission (2015d), p. 3.

  73. 73.

    See Article 3 of the draft DCD “This Directive shall apply to any contract ….and in exchange, a price is to be paid or the consumer actively provides counter-performance other than money in the form of personal data or any other data”.

  74. 74.

    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation), O.J. L119/1 (4 May 2016). In addition, the current Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), O.J. L201/37 (31 July 2002) will be repealed by the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications and repealing Directive 2002/58/EC, COM (2017) 10 final (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications), 10 Jan 2017.

  75. 75.

    E.g. the Dutch Eersten Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Opinion on the application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, ST 13742 2016 INT—2015/0287 (OLP).

  76. 76.

    However, it applies to goods like household appliances and toys where the digital content operates as an integral part of the goods (smart television sets). In addition, where a sale contract provides both for the sale of goods and the provision of services this Directive will apply only to the part relating to the sale of goods (mixed contracts). See European Parliament, summary of the proposal, p. 2.

  77. 77.

    Smits (2016a), p. 7.

  78. 78.

    The provision duplicates the definition in Art 2 para 7 of CRD 2011/83.

  79. 79.

    Smits (2016a), p. 7.

  80. 80.

    European Commission (2017d) p. 6 where the European Commission found difficulties in interpreting some provisions such as “the notion of outside the ‘business premises’ in off-premises contracts (Art 2 para 8), the distinction between a digital content contract and a contract for paid online services…”.

  81. 81.

    For the distinction between the legal guarantee and the commercial guarantee see European Commission (2007) Communication, on the implementation 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 including analysis of the case for introducing direct producers’ liability, COM(2007) 210 final, 24 April 2007, pp. 6 and 9.

  82. 82.

    Mańko (2016), p. 6 and Preamble of the Draft OSG, para. 14.

  83. 83.

    European Commission (2007), p. 9.

  84. 84.

    See above footnote 4.

  85. 85.

    Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), O.J. L178/1 (17 July 2000).

  86. 86.

    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, O.J. L304/64 (22 Nov 2011).

  87. 87.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, O.J. L95/29 (21 April 1993). The Directive 93/13/EEC applies to all consumer contracts indistinctly without any exception. It is a minimum harmonisation directive and does not apply to the price and description of goods. It may also be affected by the OSG proposal. Mańko (2016), p. 4.

  88. 88.

    See Art 2 para 7 and para 14 and Art 18 CRD.

  89. 89.

    Anagnostopoulou (2012), p. 222. Troiano (2008). 

  90. 90.

    Christopoulou (2008), p. 405.

  91. 91.

    European Commission (2015e), p. 3 and European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) – 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal, p. 1.

  92. 92.

    See Sect. 4 on the innovations of the draft OSG.

  93. 93.

    European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) – 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal, p. 1.

  94. 94.

    Beale (2016), p. 12.

  95. 95.

    See below Sect. 4.2. See Christopoulou (2008), p. 411.

  96. 96.

    Schmidt-Kessel and Silkens (2016), pp. 132–133.

  97. 97.

    ECC-NET, Summary of facts on the legal guaranty of conformity and commercial warranties. https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-consommateurs/PDFs/PDF_EN/REPORT-_GUARANTEE/tableau_EN_Legal_commercial.pdf.

  98. 98.

    Smits (2016a), p. 6.

  99. 99.

    Mańko (2016), p. 6.

  100. 100.

    CJEU Case C-404/06, Quelle AG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände, ECR 2008, p. I-2685, ECLI:EU:C:2008:231.

  101. 101.

    European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Opinion (2016), para 4.2.5.10.

  102. 102.

    European Commission (2017a, b, c, d) Evaluation, p. 6: In CRD the Commission found that there were difficulties in interpreting some provisions such as “the calculation of the diminished value of goods in cases consumers exercise their right of withdrawal after having used the goods more than necessary to establish their nature, characteristics and functioning (Art 14 para 2)”.

  103. 103.

    Art 19 para 1 of the OSG Proposal.

  104. 104.

    Mańko (2016), p. 4.

  105. 105.

    Anagnostopoulou (2013a), p. 116.

  106. 106.

    See for example UEAPME, Position Paper on contract rules for online purchases of digital content and tangible goods.

  107. 107.

    European Commission (2015e), p. 10.

  108. 108.

    European Commission (2017d) p. 2.

  109. 109.

    Smits (2016a), p. 5.

  110. 110.

    Mańko (2016), p. 4.

  111. 111.

    Anagnostopoulou (2013a), p. 122.

  112. 112.

    European Commission (2017a, b, c, d) Evaluation, p. 3. For more detailed information, see tables at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consumer-marketing/files/overview_regulatory_choices.pdf.

  113. 113.

    Mańko (2016), p. 2.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., p. 5.

  115. 115.

    European Parliament, Summary Content, p. 2.

  116. 116.

    See Court of Justice of the EU, Joined Cases C-65/09 and C-87/09, Gebr. Weber GmbH v. Jürgen Wittmer and Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronic GmbH, 16 June 2011 (on tiles and dishwasher installed), ECR 2011, p. I-05257, ECLI:EU:C:2011:396.

  117. 117.

    European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) - 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal.

  118. 118.

    Mańko (2016), p. 5.

  119. 119.

    European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) - 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal.

  120. 120.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  121. 121.

    Schulte-Nölke et al. (2012) Remedies for buyers in B2C contracts: general aspects, European Parliament, PE 462.460, p. 16.

  122. 122.

    COM(2015) 635, pp. 2–3.

  123. 123.

    Mańko (2016), p. 3.

  124. 124.

    European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Opinion (2016), p. 10: “The notion of ‘reasonable time’ is a subjective one, and provides leeway for differing transpositions on this key subject, which is incompatible with maximum harmonisation. For example, in countries such as Bulgaria, France, Portugal and Luxembourg, the time period is 30 days; in Hungary, Romania, Greece and Estonia it is 15 days. The provision should establish a period corresponding to the maximum applying in some EU countries - 15 days”.

  125. 125.

    Mańko (2016), p. 3.

  126. 126.

    European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) - 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal.

  127. 127.

    Smits (2016b), p. 3.

  128. 128.

    Mańko (2016), pp. 5–6.

  129. 129.

    Consumer market study on the functioning of Legal and Commercial Guarantees for consumers in the EU (2015) as mentioned by the Impact Assessment.

  130. 130.

    Mańko (2016), p. 3 and European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Opinion (2016).

  131. 131.

    EESC Opinion (2016), para. 4.2.5.7.

  132. 132.

    Smits (2016b), pp. 3–4.

  133. 133.

    Impact Assessment, Annex 8.

  134. 134.

    UK Parliament, Documents considered by the Committee on 10 February 2016 - European Scrutiny Contents, 5 Digital Single Market: Consumer contract rights for the online sale of goods. The Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum of 5 January 2016, Policy Implications, point 5.39. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmeuleg/342-xxii/34208.htm.

  135. 135.

    See Smits (2016b), p. 5.

  136. 136.

    Directive 85/374/EEC of the Council of 25 July 1985, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products O.J. L210/29, 7 August 1985.

  137. 137.

    See Beale (2016), p. 14. For the restrictions of the Directive see Alexandridou (2008), pp. 382–383; Anagnostopoulou (2012), p. 430.

  138. 138.

    European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) - 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal.

  139. 139.

    See Art 13 OSG. European Commission (2015e), pp. 3, 13 and 15.

  140. 140.

    Mańko (2016), p. 5.

  141. 141.

    Ibid., p. 6.

  142. 142.

    Stürner (2016), p. 8.

  143. 143.

    Smits (2016a) p. 13.

  144. 144.

    Smits (2016b), pp. 4–5.

  145. 145.

    See UEAPME, Position Paper. http://www.ueapme.com/IMG/pdf/UEAPME_position_on_Contract_Rules_for_online_purchases_of_digital_content_and_tangible_goods.pdf.

  146. 146.

    Smits (2016b), pp. 3–4.

  147. 147.

    Stürner (2016), p. 10, who makes reference to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Case C-497/13, Froukje Faber versus Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV, judgment of 4 June 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:357, para 69–75.

  148. 148.

    ECC-NET, Summary of facts on the legal guaranty of conformity and commercial warranties.

  149. 149.

    European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Opinion (2016), para 4.2.5.8.

  150. 150.

    In addition, the Commission received 11 reasoned opinions on the proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content (COM(2015) 634). Eight of the opinions covered both proposals. See Annual Report, p. 6.

  151. 151.

    See Annex 2 to the European Commission, Report on Relations of the Commission with the National Parliaments, pp. 4–5: “Six opinions, from the CZ Senát, the FR Sénat, the LU Chambre des Députés, the AT Bundesrat, the PT Assembleia da República and the RO Senat jointly concerned COM(2015) 634 and COM(2015) 635. The NL Eerste Kamer sent two opinions which both jointly concerned COM(2015) 633, COM(2015) 634 and COM(2015) 635”.

  152. 152.

    See European Commission, Annual Report 2016, pp. 6–7.

  153. 153.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion on the application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, ST 6893 2016 INIT—2015/0287 (OLP).

  154. 154.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Italian Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei Deputati), 9566/16, 18 May 2016.

  155. 155.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Austrian Federal Council of 31 March 2016 (7758/16).

  156. 156.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation of the Houses of Oireachtas in Ireland, 5755/16, January 2016, p. 4.

  157. 157.

    Romanian Parliament Senate (2016).

  158. 158.

    UK Government (2016) and UK Parliament (2016).

  159. 159.

    See European Commission (2017c), Annual Report 2016, p. 7.

  160. 160.

    European Economic and Social Committee (2016) on the DCD and OSG Proposals.

  161. 161.

    European Parliament, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Rapporteur Pascal Arimont) Draft Report on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, PE 593.817v03-00, 18 Nov 2016.

  162. 162.

    European Commission, Communication “EU regulatory fitness”, COM(2012) 746 final Strasbourg, 12.12.2012. See more at http://ec.europa.eu/info/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less_en.

  163. 163.

    Council of the European Union, Presidency Progress report no 6150/16 JUSTCIV 17 CONSOM 30 DIGIT 10 AUDIO 12 CODEC 165, available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/st-6150-2016-init/en/pdf.

  164. 164.

    See Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor (2017), point 8.

  165. 165.

    Leupold (2016).

  166. 166.

    Ibid.

  167. 167.

    See Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Austrian Federal Council of 30 March 2016 (7758/16), p. 5.

  168. 168.

    The Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC, the Sales and Guarantees Directive 1999/44/EC, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC and the Injunctions Directive 2009/22/EC.

  169. 169.

    European Commission, COM(2012) 746 final Strasbourg, 12.12.2012.

  170. 170.

    Leupold (2016), Refit “fit for purpose”? https://vkiakademie.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/refit-fit-for-purpose/. See the results of REFIT in http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail.cfm?item_id=59332.

  171. 171.

    Smits (2016a), p. 4.

  172. 172.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Austrian Federal Council of 30 March 2016 (7758/16), p. 5.

  173. 173.

    Smits (2016a), p. 3.

  174. 174.

    Watson (2016), p. 252.

  175. 175.

    European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Opinion (2016), para 1.8.

  176. 176.

    See European Commission (2017c), pp. 6–7.

  177. 177.

    Hesselink (2016), p. 519; Mańko (2016), p. 4.

  178. 178.

    Smits (2016a), p. 5. Compare European Law Institute (ELI) approach as cited by Mańko (2016), p. 9.

  179. 179.

    Twigg-Flesner (2016), p. 13.

  180. 180.

    Draft Directive, Preamble Recital 14. See also Smits (2016a), p. 7.

  181. 181.

    Smits (2016a), p. 8.

  182. 182.

    Ibid.

  183. 183.

    Stürner (2016), pp. 2–3.

  184. 184.

    Smits (2016a), p. 16.

  185. 185.

    Hesselink (2016), p. 519.

  186. 186.

    Smits (2016a), p. 6.

  187. 187.

    Smits (2016a), pp. 6–7.

  188. 188.

    See EESC (2016) Opinion, para 2.4.

  189. 189.

    See Art 3 para 5 of CRD Directive 2011/83/EC: “This Directive shall not affect national general contract law such as the rules on the validity, formation or effect of a contract, in so far as general contract law aspects are not regulated in this Directive”.

  190. 190.

    Stürner (2016), p. 2.

  191. 191.

    Anagnostopoulou (2012), pp. 230–232.

  192. 192.

    Mańko (2016), p. 1.

  193. 193.

    Mańko (2016), p. 4.

  194. 194.

    Mańko (2016), p. 9.

  195. 195.

    See UEAPME, Position Paper. http://www.ueapme.com/IMG/pdf/UEAPME_position_on_Contract_Rules_for_online_purchases_of_digital_content_and_tangible_goods.pdf.

  196. 196.

    See points 1.4–1.6 and 3.1.4. of the Opinion. For the five options, see European Commission (2015d), p. 9.

  197. 197.

    European Law Institute (ELI) approach as cited by Mańko (2016), p. 9.

  198. 198.

    Mańko (2016), pp. 8–9, referring to UAPME, the EU SME Federation, Eurocommerce, the Austria Economic Chamber, the Polish Business Federation, the European and International Federation of Booksellers etc. For the theoretical justification of this approach see Grundmann (2013), p. 225.

  199. 199.

    Schulte-Nölke (2007).

  200. 200.

    Hesselink (2016), p. 523.

  201. 201.

    Smits (2016a), p. 5; Hesselink (2016), p. 523.

  202. 202.

    Anagnostopoulou (2013b), p. 210.

  203. 203.

    Hesselink (2016), p. 534.

  204. 204.

    European Commission factsheet, “Why we need a Digital Single Market”, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/dsm-factsheet_en.pdf.

  205. 205.

    European Commission (2015c) Digital contracts for Europe - Unleashing the potential of e-commerce, COM(2015) 633, Brussels, 9 Dec 2015.

  206. 206.

    Anagnostopoulou (2017) referring to Wunch-Vincent (2016), pp. 103–105.

  207. 207.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Austrian Federal Council of 30 March 2016 (7758/16), p. 5.

  208. 208.

    Council of the European Union, Opinion of the Austrian Federal Council of 30 March 2016 (7758/16), p. 5.

  209. 209.

    European Commission (2017e).

  210. 210.

    Beale (2016), p. 9.

References

  • Alexandridou E (2008) Consumer protection law. Sakkoulas Publishers, Thessaloniki

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2012) Law of international transactions: the European dimension (in Greek). A. Sakkoulas, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2013a) E-commerce in international and European Union law: the policy of the European Union on digital agenda and strategy 2020. Hell Rev Eur Law Foreign Ed 2013:109

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2013b) EU policies and Common European Sales Law. In: Bitzenis A, Vlachos V (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on international business, May 16–18, 2013, pp 283–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulou D (2017) Τhe digital agenda of the European Union and the digital policies of the US. In: Zacher L (ed) Technology, society and sustainability – selected concepts, issues and cases. Springer International, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo Amayuelas E (2016) The idea of an optional contract code. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) Research handbook on EU consumer and contract law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 463–486

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2011) Fakultatives Unionsprivatrecht oder: Grundlagen des 28. Modells. In: Festschrift für Franz Jürgen Säcker. CH Beck, München, pp 25–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Basedow J (2012) An EU law for cross-border sales only – its meaning and implications in open markets, Max Planck Private International and Comparative Law, Research Paper No. 12/20, pp 43–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Beale H (2016) The future of European contract law in the light of the European Commission’s proposals for directives on digital content and online sales. IDP Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política 23:3–20. https://doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i21.3085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulou C (2008) Consumer sale. In: Douvlis V, Bolos A (eds) Consumer protection law (in Greek). Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens, p 401

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero-Moss G (2016) Standard contract terms as an alternative to legislation. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) Research handbook on EU consumer and contract law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 487–507

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union (Justice and Home Affairs), 3455th meeting of the 10–11 March 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-190/11, Daniela Mühlleitner v. Ahmad Yusufi και Wadat Yusufi, 6 Sept 2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:542

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-404/06, Quelle AG v. Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände, 17 April 2008, ECR 2008, p. I-2685, ECLI:EU:C:2008:231

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the EU, Joined cases C-65/09 and C-87/09, Gebr. Weber GmbH v. Jürgen Wittmer and Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronic GmbH, 16 June 2011, ECR 2011, p. I-05257, ECLI:EU:C:2011:396

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-497/13, Froukje Faber v. Autobedrijf Hazet Ochten BV, 4 June 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:357

    Google Scholar 

  • Cygan A (2016) A step too far? Constitutional objections to harmonisation of EU consumer and contract law. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) Research handbook on EU consumer and contract law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Communication, European Contract Law, COM(2001) 398, Brussels, 11 July 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2003) Communication, a more coherent European Contract Law, An Action Plan, COM(2003) 68, Brussels, 12 Feb 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2007) Communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation 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 including analysis of the case for introducing direct producers’ liability, COM(2007) 210, Brussels, 24 April 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) Communication, Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels, 3 March 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011) Communication, proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law, COM(2011) 635 final, Brussels, 11 Oct 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012) Communication, EU regulatory fitness, COM(2012) 746 final, Strasbourg, 12 Dec 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) DG justice guidance document concerning 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, DG Justice, Brussels, June 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015a) Communication, a digital single market strategy for Europe, COM(2015) 192 final, Brussels, 6 May 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015b) Commission staff working document. A digital single market strategy for Europe - analysis and evidence communication from the commission, COM(2015) 192 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015c) Communication, digital contracts for Europe - unleashing the potential of e-commerce, COM(2015) 633, Brussels, 9 Dec 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015d) Communication, proposal for a directive “on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content”, COM(2015) 634, Brussels, 9 Dec 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015e) Communication, proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council “on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods”, COM(2015) 635, 2015/0288 (COD), Brussels, 9 Dec 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015f) Commission staff working document, impact assessment, Brussels, 18 Dec 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016a) Communication, European Cloud Initiative - Building a competitive data and knowledge economy in Europe, COM(2016) 178 final, Brussels, 19 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on cross-border parcel delivery services, COM(2016) 285 final, Brussels, 25 May 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016c) Communication, Online Platforms and the Digital Single Market Opportunities and Challenges for Europe, COM(2016) 288 final, Brussels, 25 May 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2016d) Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC and Directive 2009/132/EC as regards certain value added tax obligations for supplies of services and distance sales of goods, COM(2016) 757, Brussels, 1 Dec 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017a) Commission staff working document accompanying the document communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Mid-Term Review on the implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy “A Connected Digital Single Market for All”, SWD/2017/0155 final

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017b) Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 154 final, accompanying the document report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Final Report on the E-Commerce Sector Inquiry, COM(2017) 229, Brussels, 10 May 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017c) Report from the Commission, Annual Report 2016, on relations between the European Commission and National Parliaments, COM(2017) 601 final, Brussels, 30 June 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017d) Report on the application 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, COM(2017) 259, Brussels, 23 May 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2017e) Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Brussels, COM(2017) 637 final, Brussels, 31 Oct 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission factsheet, “Why we need a Digital Single Market”. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/dsm-factsheet_en.pdf

  • European Data Protection Supervisor, Opinion on the Proposal for a Directive on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content, (2017/C 200/07), O.J. C200/10 (23 June 2017). https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/17-03-14_opinion_digital_content_en.pdf

  • European Economic and Social Committee (2012) Opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Common European Sales Law and the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Common European Sales Law to facilitate cross-border transactions in the single market, INT/600 – CESE 800/2012, Brussels 29 March 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • European Economic and Social Committee (2016) Opinion on the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content’ (COM(2015) 634 final — 2015/0287 (COD)) and the ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods’ (COM(2015) 635 final — 2015/0288 (COD)), O.J. C264/57, 20 July 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament, Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (Rapporteur Pascal Arimont) Draft Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, PE 593.817v03-00, 18 November 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament, Summary Content, 2015/0288(COD) – 09/12/2015 Legislative proposal

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer H (2012) Optionales europäisches Privatrecht (“28. Modell”). Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 76:235–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grigorova Ilieva E (2013) The proposal for a Common European Sales Law: does the European Union need this optional common code? https://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/ilieva.html

  • Grundmann S (2013) Costs and benefits for an optional European Sales Law. Common Mark Law Rev 50:225

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesselink MW (2016) Contract theory and EU contract law. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) Research handbook on EU consumer and contract law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 508–534

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Király M (2015) The rise and fall of common European sales law. ELTE Law J 2:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando O, Beale H (2000) Principles of European contract law, Parts I and II, Part III. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando O, Beale H (2003) Principles of European contract law, Parts I and II, Part III. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Leupold P (2016) Refit “fit for purpose”? 28. Sept 2016. https://vkiakademie.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/refit-fit-for-purpose

  • Magnus U, Mankowski P (eds) (2007) The Brussels Ι regulation. Sellier European Law Publishers, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Mańko R (2016) Contracts for online and other distance sales of goods (February 16, 2016). European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 577.962, EU legislation in progress, Briefing. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/577962/EPRS_BRI(2016)577962_EN.pdf

  • Posner EA (2012) The questionable basis of the Common European Sales Law: the role of an optional instrument in jurisdictional competition (May 1, 2012). University of Chicago Institute for Law & Economics Olin Research Paper No. 597. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2049594 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2049594

  • Research Group on the Law of Digital Services, Discussion Draft of a Directive on Online Intermediary Platforms, EuCML, Issue 4/2016, 164-169

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanian Parliament Senate (2016) Opinion regarding the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the online and other distance sales of goods, 5937/2016, 1 March 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Kessel M, Silkens E (2016) Breach of contract. In: Plaza Penades J, Martines Velencoso L (eds) European perspectives on Common European Sales Law. Springer International, Basel, p 111

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Nölke H (2007) EC law on the formation of contract – from the common frame of reference to the ‘blue button’. Eur Rev Contract Law 3(3):332–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Nölke H (2011) Der Blue Button kommt: Konturen einer rechtlichen Infrastruktur für den Binnenmarkt. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht 19:749

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulte-Nölke H, Zoll F, Charlton S (2012) Remedies for buyers in B2C contracts: general aspects, European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies-Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, PE 462.460, p 16. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2012/462460/IPOL-JURI_NT(2012)462460_EN.pdf

  • Smits J (2016a) The New EU proposal for harmonised rules for the online sales of tangible goods (COM (2015) 635): conformity, lack of conformity and remedies (February 12, 2016). European Parliament Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, briefing note PE 536.492, European Union Publications Office, February 2016; Maastricht European Private Law Institute Working Paper No. 2016/01. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2731811

  • Smits J (2016b) New European Union proposals for distance sales and digital contents contracts: fit for purpose? (February 17, 2016). Zeitschrift für europäisches Privatrecht 2016, pp 319–324 and in a doc file, pp 1–6. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2733815

  • Study Group on a European Civil Code/Research Group on EC Private Law (2009) Principles, definitions and model rules of European private law: Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR). Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Stürner Μ (2016) Stellungnahme zu den Kommissionsvorschlägen COM(2015) 634 und COM(2015) 635 im Rahmen der öffentlichen Anhörung des Ausschusses für Recht und Verbraucherschutz des Deutschen Bundestages, 4 May 2016. https://www.bundestag.de/blob/422106/efd7cdf67eb00e2c82d577d7c480bcfb/stuerner-data.pdf

  • Troiano S (2008) The CISG’s impact on EU legislation. Internationale Handelsrecht 6:222

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg-Flesner C (2016) Introduction: EU consumer and contract law at a crossroads. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) Research handbook on EU consumer and contract law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • UEAPME Position Paper on Contract Rules for online purchases of digital content and tangible goods. http://www.ueapme.com/IMG/pdf/UEAPME_position_on_Contract_Rules_for_online_purchases_of_digital_content_and_tangible_goods.pdf

  • UK Government call for views, Draft directives on the online sale of digital content and tangible goods, January 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • UK Parliament, Documents considered by the Committee on 10 February 2016 - European Scrutiny Contents, 5 Digital Single Market: Consumer contract rights for the online sale of goods. The Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum of 5 January 2016, Policy Implications, point 5.39. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmeuleg/342-xxii/34208.htm

  • Watson J (2016) Withdrawal rights. In: Twigg-Flesner C (ed) Research handbook on EU consumer and contract law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 241–265

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wunch-Vincent S (2006) The WTO, the internet and trade in digital products: EC-US perspectives. Hart, Oxford, pp 103–105

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Research on Crucial Issues of European Integration”, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Despina Anagnostopoulou

Authors
  1. Despina Anagnostopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Despina Anagnostopoulou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Studies, University of London, London, UK

    Maren Heidemann

  2. Law School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Joseph Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Anagnostopoulou, D. (2018). The Withdrawal of the Common European Sales Law Proposal and the European Commission Proposal on Certain Aspects Concerning Contracts for the Online and Other Distance Sales of Goods. In: Heidemann, M., Lee, J. (eds) The Future of the Commercial Contract in Scholarship and Law Reform. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95969-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95969-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95968-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95969-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation