Proposition 52K2340

Projet de loi relatif aux pratiques du marché et à la protection du consommateur.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Dec. 28, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection consumer information guarantee sale

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 11, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, Mr. Minister, I do not see the Minister of Economy who, however, was present in a committee where he had the leisure to hear all our remarks.

The Law on Commercial Practices and on Information and Consumer Protection dates back to 1991, which is almost twenty years. Since then, profound changes have taken place in our economy and therefore this law on trade practices had to be transformed as the supply of services is disturbed – I think in particular of the electronic economy. Some rules no longer corresponded at all to today’s commercial and economic realities.

After the first modernization in 2007, a profound revision of this law was necessary. The amendments focused mainly on the following points: the way in which price reductions can be announced (this is the question of balances), the lifting of the prohibition in the case of distance sales to require payment before the expiry of the reflection period, the fundamental modification of the rules on the waiting period (which is being shortened) and the authorisation of joint sales. The revision of this fundamental legislation governing the commercial relations between consumers and merchants has effects on our daily lives.

For the CDH, Mr. Joseph George points out that this project is highly anticipated to integrate the latest European developments such as the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices or the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities authorising joint sales. He was ⁇ concerned about the abandonment of the notion of seller in favor of the notion of enterprise. Indeed, this opens up the question of the definition of the enterprise and more ⁇ of the place of the liberal professions. These are excluded from the scope of this law and will be subject to specific laws. We have had a very long debate about these liberal professions.

For the sp.a, Ms. Cathy Plasman, who is not there but I apologize for participating in all the debates so far in this plenary session, recalls the crucial importance of this bill for consumers and the proper functioning of the market, the effective protection of the consumer and the trust of the latter, essential conditions for the proper functioning of the market. If for the sp.a, it was necessary to modernize the law, it was a shame not to pursue the goal of modern consumer protection. This text is made to meet the interests of the producer and not that of the consumer, according to Ms. Plasman.

The sp.a is therefore opposed to this text, to its lack of vision as to modern consumer protection.

For the PS, all questions must be able to be asked and receive clear and precise answers from the ministers, all three present during our debates. This is an important issue and concerns all citizens. The PS is ⁇ attentive to the points concerning more specifically the definition of consumer, the information and the rights to which it can claim; the problem of the authorisation of joint sale; the question of the control of legislation by the SPF Economy.

Ecologically green! is concerned about the potential implications of the Services Directive on this bill. He asks whether the two texts are not, somewhere, in contradiction with a risk of legal uncertainty. After deploring the application of the principle of maximum harmonisation, Ecolo raises doubts about the procedure for consulting the various advisory bodies. Has it been done properly? Finally Mr. Balcaen investigates the Commission on Ecological Labeling and Advertising and finds that it has not met since 2003.

CD&V is the last group to speak during the general discussion. After reacting to the critics of sp.a and Ecolo-Groen! The CD&V emphasizes the balance created by the bill between the right protection of consumers and companies including SMEs and small self-employed. The CD&V recalls the central role of the SPF Economy in terms of control and compliance with legislation. Finally, it highlights the pragmatic side of the law, in particular in terms of display, labelling and uses, which will have to be expressed in a language understandable to the consumer, taking into account the language region in which the goods and services are supplied.

For more detailed information on the content of the discussions, I suggest you refer to the written report. As we were two rapporteurs for this bill, I imagine that my colleague Liesbeth Van der Auwera will continue the report on our work in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I take the article-based discussion on my behalf.

During the discussion of the articles, we submitted a majority resolution, to redefine the concept of "consumer". Some rules of the design concern not only the relationship between ⁇ and consumers with regard to goods and services, but also with regard to real estate, rights and obligations. The definition of ‘consumer’ should therefore be amended by referring to the acquisition or use of products, rather than merely referring to goods and services.

Ms. Cathy Plasman, who has been quoted several times during the presentation of this report, wished to further protect the current situation, including legal entities acting outside their business or professional activities, under the umbrella ‘consumer’. The Minister of Climate and Energy replied that the term "consumer" should not be assigned to legal entities and that thus is attached to the European directives on consumer protection. Only natural persons are eligible as consumers.

Minister Laruelle states that the Government is also working on drafting a draft relating to the free professions and that in this regard various comments such as those of Ms. Uyttersprot are taken into account. This draft would include a list of all free professions.

Mr. Pope Francis requested with amendment no. 9 to maintain the current wording on information obligation. From now on, the information obligation will only cover the main characteristics of the product. According to Ms Plasman, this supplement could give rise to discussions about what the main characteristics of a product are. Minister Magnette also referred to the limitations in Article 4 of the draft as the main characteristics. This is necessary because Article 4 is otherwise incompatible with the Directive.

During the discussions in the committee, we had a nice discussion about the concept of ‘average consumer’. Also from sp.a. they wanted to change this into “consumer”. I refer to Minister Magnette who said that the European Commission has formally failed Belgium to add the word "average" in the legislation itself. The draft addresses this by explicitly stating, where appropriate, in the articles concerning commercial practices towards consumers, that it is the average consumer to be taken into account for the application of that rule.

Furthermore, Ms. Plasman submitted an amendment to include the price to which the reduction is applied in the indication of the new price.

We have clearly responded to this in the committee. We thought it was not necessary.

I would like to point out the amendments by Mr. Laeremans on the legibility of consumer agreements. In this regard, the Minister for Entrepreneurship and Simplification noted that the jurisprudence is clear, in the sense that what is not sufficiently readable is considered unwritten. Therefore, no amendment needs to be approved.

We also discussed an amendment by Ms. Plasman on the advance payment for distance sales. At this point, Minister Laruelle replied to us that such a ban constitutes a significant limitation for the further development of internet commerce in Belgium. In addition, the draft obliges the undertaking to reimburse the amount paid within a period of 30 days.

Ms. Lalieux emphasized that all studies on the subject clearly show that the joint supply of a good and a service is always at the detriment of the consumer. As a result of the judgment of the European Court of Justice, all the criteria contained in the draft have been deleted.

Finally, we have submitted some amendments from our group aimed at making amendments to the articles in response to the objections of the State Council. With the introduction of the Social Criminal Code, the powers of the Social Inspectorate will be fully rewritten.

We wanted to align the different inspection services, both in terms of the powers of the Social and Economic Inspectorate and in terms of the conditions. The Minister replied that the day was too short to take action immediately. We have noted that there will be work on it. This can be further investigated. We have therefore withdrawn our amendments.

The report of the discussion of this draft in the committee.

Thank you for your report. First, I give the word to Mrs. Staelraeve.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to address my discussion on the important draft law on market practices and consumer protection to you under the term “live the real protection and away with the bullying”.

It has already been cited by several colleagues that the law we amend today is twenty years old and dates from another consumer era. This law led to modernization and change. It is the existing law on commercial practices, a law that regulates the contacts between consumers and merchants, thus between almost everyone in this country and merchants. The provisions of the law have been somewhat overlooked. The existing law went from a somewhat paternalist way of protecting the consumer. In a European context, this law needs to be amended more than ever.

The vision developed in the current law originated from the idea that every consumer reasoned in the same way and made the same considerations at the same time and in any place; the norm in that law was the protection of the weakest. A well-intentioned step but, as I said, no longer consistent with today’s practice and not necessarily leading to the intended outcome. The reality in 2010 is that of a consumer — a man, a woman, a child — who behaves differently depending on the situation in which he or she is in and makes choices based on different considerations.

All Belgians are, as I said, consumers. They do so in Belgium and abroad. They take less and less into account the national boundaries, the place boundaries, the status boundaries, let alone the boundaries that others or we as legislators impose on them. They organize themselves, make their own choices to participate. In other words, today’s consumer is actually someone who loves freedom very much and who is ultimately a great liberal. This is the reality of his behavior in 2010. So it was also high time for an adjustment of the law, also to be ready for the future.

Not only the consumer, but also the trader has changed, as well as the challenges he or she faces. The retail trade in our country, the service sector, is a very important sector that accounts for 13% of our country’s GDP and employs more than 600 000 people. However, the sector does not score so well in terms of prices and in terms of productivity. In the international regulatory database of the OECD, Belgium, after Luxembourg, is the country with the toughest regulation in the sector.

This has implications for the sector, which needs more simplicity, flexibility and adaptation to the future.

The design will not hinder the sector, as some fear, but only make the sector resilient to the challenges of the future, such as e-commerce and a more international context. The liberals believe that quality always comes above business.

With the new law on market practices, it is undoubted, at least to the outside world, that the abolition of the ban on linked sales is central and most in the eye. Some fear that allowing linked sales would be dangerous and would even involve obligations that consumers do not want. Others fear that the consumer will understand nothing of it, when some things are offered to him together. There is also the fear that link sales will not automatically lead to lower prices.

It is a piece by piece of fears that were anticipated to us and that depart from the vision that the consumer and the trader cannot decide on their own. Are consumers not smart enough to make such choices themselves?

Open Vld is convinced that the consumer can decide for himself. The consumer is smart enough. The self-employed trader — the provider — is also smart enough to discover a market hole and a new option, on which he or she can respond, without locomotive practices or abuse. After all, let it be clear that this is still not possible with the new law that we will approve later; the protection of the consumer is guaranteed. Unfair trade practices remain a very serious violation of existing law.

When we later allow the linked sale, we will hopefully see that, for example, mobile calling in Belgium can become cheaper. For example, a SIM-only subscription, such as exists in the Netherlands, could become an offer on the Belgian market. Two years ago, when such a subscription — a subscription without a minimum duration, without the obligation to buy a new device and which is cancellable at any time — came on the market in the Netherlands, the Dutch massively jumped on the possibility and they massively signed on the subscription. Per ⁇ nobody will argue here that the Dutch have a good nose for cheap deal.

The report-De Bauw, which was the Bible and formed the basis for the preparation of the current new law on market practices, further emphasizes that the current legislation on market practices needs to be simplified. Legislation should be simpler, more general and less complex. It should also, as I have already mentioned, be more internationally oriented.

All this is now happening with the text that we will approve, also in terms of the price indication. The new law, which we will approve later, allows any form of price indication, as long as there is no confusion in the consumer. A whole set of rules are simplified by the present design, among other things for the voucher. The trader can, as mentioned, expose more creativity.

Again fearing that everything would become more difficult and that one must step up with a calculator seems to us a bit exaggerated. A fear of the unknown, ⁇ . We will wait and see what it gives. We are already convinced that this law and this approach can ⁇ work and give the consumer a lot of freedom. By the way, what consumer will buy something he doesn’t understand?

From now on, it will also be possible to sell with a limited profit margin. Regarding a ban on this that only existed in Belgium, we now agree on the countries around us. Furthermore, the existing ban caused a lot of uncertainty among traders, legal problems and conflicting decisions by judges who had to judge about them.

Consistent application of the prohibition in existing legislation, thus ⁇ ining the prohibition, would also further hinder entrepreneurship. Every new company would therefore be confronted with it and would have to adhere to very strict rules regarding, for example, inventories. Thus, those who lose less are lost.

But also for consumers, the abolition of that ban is a good thing. The ban on extremely limited profit margins prevented sharp price competition and was at the disadvantage of consumers, and thus also at the disadvantage of traders.

Finally, with this law, we also adapt to new forms of distance selling. One form we all know is internet sales. According to the new legislation, webshops can now request a payment before the customer's consideration period has expired. On the contrary, this consideration period is extended from one week to two weeks. If the customer would still think afterwards, he will get the product refunded up to thirty days after the purchase. Thus, it is an adjustment to a new market and at the same time attention to protection.

In connection with distance sales, it is also significant that not a year ago a lawyer filed a complaint against the FOD Economie, against the store of our own Parliament. The Federal Parliament sells a number of things through its store, via the Internet. Not a year ago, a lawyer filed a complaint because our own Parliament just passed the ban on asking for advance payment by foot. After all, what happened? For the small products sold by the Parliament, advance payment was requested, and only then was delivered. The action of the lawyer that brought this into account was therefore intended to counter this. The lawyer found that Belgium should adapt to the legislation abroad by easing the distance sale. Thus, today, we also establish our own Parliament as a rule.

The prohibition on link sales, the stricter rules for discounts and the fact that one could only receive his product after payment are the main reasons why online stores in Belgium still do not thrive.

The internet commerce still does not flourish here as it does abroad, although there are a lot of new webshops being established and although the Belgian is increasingly using and purchasing through webshops. But we are still behind in the row. We still have a lot to get in if we see that the sales at webshops mainly by Belgians in more than half at foreign webshops. There is an entire market open. We therefore sincerely hope that with this new law these webshops will flourish and grow.

I have cited here many reasons why Open Vld is very satisfied with the law that we will approve here later. We have also linked a number of legislative proposals. One of them will be further discussed in a subsequent session of the committee, namely the bill to allow parking, not only per hour but also per minute. That is what we will return to later.

The current draft law on market practices and consumer protection that we hope to adopt tonight opens a gateway to the future for consumers and traders. It opens the door to a world where shopping will undoubtedly become more exciting and interesting for each of us. We will all have to get better after approval.

This law and the draft law have been worked on for a long time. My colleagues will undoubtedly repeat this. An extensive round of advice, consultation and consultation has been preceded. Someone has played a very special role. I wish to thank him personally again tonight. Professor Herman De Bauw, who stood at the cradle of the text and who has been employed by the FOD Economie since 2006 to prepare for this, has done groundbreaking work here. I would therefore like to thank him and take my hat off for his expertise, his calmness and his tranquility, also in the last weeks of the discussion of this draft in the committee and during all the work that preceded it. Thank you Professor De Bauw. It is now up to us to apply this law as best as possible.

With the adoption of the bill under discussion today, it is a matter of amending the law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices and on information and consumer protection. As Ms. Lalieux pointed out in particular, it was interesting to adapt it to the realities of the field.

I recall that in its statement of October 2008, the Government stated that it wanted to adopt a balanced approach in this area between consumer protection, the economic development of the sector and independent trade.

When reading the text, however, one cannot get rid of the impression that the bill on trade practices and consumer protection has more to do with trade practices than with consumer protection. This is evidenced by a series of provisions which accuse a downturn for consumers and justify that we will vote against the text. Without being unnecessarily long, I would like to return to some of these elements.

First of all, the prohibition in case of distance sales to demand payment before the expiry of the reflection period is lifted and this, according to the government, in order to stimulate e-commerce in Belgium. Therefore, you will have to pay before being delivered following an order on the Internet. What happens if the product or service is not delivered? What happens in case of renunciation to the sale? These are questions that, I think, have not been answered in the commission.

In return, it is true that the reflection period goes from 7 business days to 14 calendar days and that a ban on the use of default options that should be de-marked to avoid any payment for one or more additional products is established. This is a positive element. This is one of the important issues you have discussed in the committee.

The second element is the joint offer. The authorization to offer joint offers is introduced in our law following, in particular, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2009. It is an obligation to comply with it. This authorisation does not apply to financial services. Here too, however, the consumer will be ⁇ sought for joint offers that may eventually cost him very expensive, especially when the coupled sale includes a subscription, for example a gsm subscription coupled with the sale of the said gsm.

We insisted on the need to ensure control of practices in this area. The various ministers present in the committee have given assurances on this point. However, one can ask what the funds granted to the SPF Economy for effective control are. In fact, I find that every time a legislation is adopted, under the cover of administrative simplifications, an improvement in controls is announced, but what about the allocation of new resources?

I come to a third element. In the context of the tacit renewal of a service contract, the notice period is increased to a maximum of two months, rather than one month in the current law, which means that the consumer may be forced to pay an additional month for a service he does not want or no longer desires. In contrast, the bill allows unilateral price increases in current contracts under certain circumstances. I wanted to emphasize this, as well as the fact that the discussion in the committee has helped to make the provisions on this point less harmful to the consumer.

A fourth element is the fixation to seven working days of the consideration period for sales concluded outside the company, this while the proposed European directive in discussion plans to increase this period to 14 days, both for distance sales and for sales concluded outside the premises of the company. It may therefore be surprising that the bill does not anticipate these future provisions.

Finally, the fifth element concerns a concept that has been widely discussed and on which we will probably not agree. This is the concept of “average consumer” which is also imposed by Europe. We talked a lot about this in the committee and I acknowledge that this is a complex issue. I am convinced that replacing the notion of “consumer” with that of “average consumer” and considering that the consumer’s rights must be understood as those of the average consumer, is clearly a downturn in consumer protection. If you look at the literature, you can see that this notion has been widely criticized for two key reasons: on the one hand, vulnerable consumers may not be protected and, on the other hand, the concept is used fictitiously in litigation, the judge simply saying, “I refer to the concept of average consumer to not be obliged to conduct concrete investigations.”

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the proposed Directive on consumer rights, this proposal being discussed at the moment, does not currently refer to this concept of average consumer and that it also includes the liberal professions in the scope, which is not the bill being discussed. This promises us rapid changes to the new law.

As part of this discussion in the plenary session, Mr. and Mr. Ministers, we submitted amendments to take into account two realities. The first concerns market practices and aims to counter the aggressive distribution of personnel at prices that challenge any competition. Indeed, in recent years, a number of companies have benefited from the opening of markets and borders and new technologies to propose to send a service provider to provide a service at the home of the consumer at an hourly wage rate lower than that provided by the collective labour agreement of a comparable enterprise or to the remuneration of workers titles-services.

In addition to the fact that the labour law is thus violated, these practices fall within the scope of unfair economic competition between companies.

The other amendment we submitted concerns information on financial products. The economic and financial crisis has highlighted the lack of information from consumers about the risks they are taking and the fact that this underestimation of risks could lead to permanent debt. Therefore, a number of provisions had to be taken. Among these, Directive 2008/48 of the European Parliament and of the Council on consumer credit contracts provides an initial response to address this worrying phenomenon.

It provides that Member States may require the total annual effective rate to be indicated in advertising for credit contracts and specifies the pre-contractual information to be communicated to consumers. We simply propose by amendment to introduce these elements in the bill, in order to supplement the information to be communicated in distance contracts relating to financial services.

As regards the future, Mr. Minister, the proposal for a directive on consumer law, which has been discussed since the end of 2008, breaks definitively with the tradition, since the Commission intends to replace the principle of full harmonisation with the minimum harmonisation currently in force.

In practice, this means that Member States will no longer have the choice to go beyond the requirements of the Directives to better protect their consumers. The same level of protection would be found everywhere. Whether the principle can be accepted under certain conditions, in the case of the Union of Twenty-Seven, in which States present many disparities and where the new Member States are seriously lowering the overall level of protection, the question is nevertheless questionable. We are opposed to this derivative induced by complete harmonization.

This debate took place in the committee as well as during the committee meeting, when we discussed the Belgian priorities for the European Presidency. At the very least, it can be said that the Belgian position on this matter is not ⁇ clear today. I have heard you and Minister Van Quickenborne intervene on the matter. I'm not sure you have the same position at this stage. That is why I allow myself, through this debate, to restore the question of whether, at the present stage, a clear position is defended by Belgium on this concept of comprehensive harmonisation, in particular within the framework of the Belgian Presidency.

If I insist on this point, it is because the weight of European directives, whether it is the Services Directive or the Consumer Directives, is ⁇ heavy.

Many provisions are imposed on us without much room for maneuver, so it requires a ⁇ voluntary investment at European level, especially from governments. I do not believe that at this stage, things are completely blocked and that the Mass is said in the matter. Certainly there are still possibilities for the modification of the provisions of the proposed directive.

If we do not fight on this point, you will again have to regret, as you have repeatedly said in the committee, the adoption of provisions contrary to the interests of consumers. I am convinced that this is not really what you want.

Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I thank Mrs. Lalieux and Mrs. Van der Auwera for the report. My name has been mentioned several times. I will not repeat everything.

It is a very important law. We have done a thorough analysis of the law. Thirty amendments, that is nothing. If it was a good draft, we probably ⁇ ’t have to submit 30 amendments. The numbers, of course, show how great our anger and disappointment is about the proposals in the field of consumer protection.

I am disappointed that Minister Van Quickenborne is not here. Will he still come?

You need to tweet.

Are you going to Twitter, Renate?

The [...]

I will call Minister Van Quickenborne.

Mrs. Speaker, we are with two members of the government here, Mr. Magnette and myself, and it is a very good text.

Our point relates primarily to the powers of Minister Magnette. Unfortunately, Minister Van Quickenborne too often thinks that he also has those powers. That is a bit the problem. I would have liked to face him again.

Mrs. Plasman, you can continue. I understand that Minister Van Quickenborne has apologized.

For the French speakers who do not read the Flemish newspapers, Minister Van Quickenborne last week spoke the big word in De Morgen over Peeters and Pichal, a very important consumer program on the Flemish radio. He said he’s listening a lot and that he’s obliging all his cabinet members to listen, but I still think he’s not listening enough. When I read the design, I don’t think he did a lot of work out of it. It is a disappointment in terms of modernization. This was already cited by Open Vld, but we see the modernization in a different way. The design lacks a number of tools to protect consumers.

We understand that linked sales should be allowed by European regulations, but then something must be opposed. Rules on maximum breakdown fees should be imposed, or transitions should be facilitated. What situation do we have at the moment? Both in the energy and telecommunications sectors, there are numerous problems and complaints.

Open Vld believes, in the words of Ms. Staelraeve, that consumers are smart enough. I wonder if we are smart enough. When we talk about the telecommunications sector in the Infrastructure Committee, each colleague wants to testify about his or her problems with GSM subscriptions, because one does not understand how everything works.

Ms. Plasman, you refer to that concrete example. I hope you find yourself smart enough to make the right weighing, I think we are all that. I think every Belgian is smart enough to make the right choices. As I mentioned above, the bill provides for a wide range of information obligations and penalties based on violations of the Law on Commercial Practices.

With regard to telecommunications, your party knows better than any party (...) a restriction of competition in the market, and that much would be corrected by increased competition in that market. This would make our market much cheaper.

Mr. Staelraeve, this is, of course, the point, but look at the competition in the energy market.

Therefore, today we have submitted an amendment to Article 74. We have had the interesting discussion about the fact that anyone can simply increase the price in the contract, in addition to indexing. Recently we see that even indexing no longer guarantees us. This is why our amendment goes even further: we really want the consumer to know what it is about. When someone signs a contract, they need to know when a price increase occurs and how it is calculated. He must be informed and have the opportunity to terminate the contract.

The same is currently true for Belgacom and Telenet, which are launching the unlimited download. However, no one knows how it is with contracts for a fixed or indefinite duration. Belgacom and Telenet are talking about a price increase and a change in the conditions. Apparently everyone can. With this design, I think that the consumer must be very smart to know where he or she is going. This is why we submitted our amendment: helping the consumer in the matter.

I would like to briefly address the legal context. There was a very heavy opinion from the State Council, in a negative sense. This afternoon we also noticed that there are also problems with some articles that fall under the bicameral procedure. Per ⁇ Professor De Bauw is not a lawyer, but if he had been assisted by a number of lawyers, that would have been tracked in advance.

The unclearness of the text, which is also accused by the Council of State, also hampers the jurisprudence and in the first instance even the control. The Economic Inspectorate will not even know how to act. If we look at the new price indication for discounts or in the balances, everything turns out to be possible now. Does the consumer know how to do it and how can the inspection know how to do it? We still have a large number of questions.

When it comes to distance sales, we should not just follow the other countries. I think we have said many times that Belgium is ahead. Minister Magnette has here cited the argument that we had to introduce the obligation to pay in advance when buying on the Internet or by phone in order to support the “boom” of the webshops on the Internet, but then I do not understand that according to a study published last week, between 2008 and 2009 we have seen a 20% increase in the webshops. I do not see any problems there; this sector is booming. It is a weakness that must be paid in advance. In addition, if you look at the complaints at the European and Belgian level in connection with online purchases, 50% declare that you do not even receive the product. If you pay something and you don’t get it, you’re in trouble getting your money back. If you do not receive the product within 30 days, you must arrange it yourself or cancel it according to the new scheme. That is not to be done. We had a very good arrangement. I do not see any arguments to weaken them so much. Therefore, I find it also a very strong weakening, in addition to a series of other points, to which I will not return now.

Mr. Balcain also cited a number of issues. The shift of the notice period from 1 to 2 months is still such a thing. These are often small things, but if you do the sum of them...

I’ve been sitting here for 10 minutes now listening to you with ever-increasing surprise. From Mr. Landuyt I can follow certain statements in the press. After all, he was not present at any committee meeting, but from you, who have experienced the discussions from the beginning, I now hear things that really make my eyebrows shrink. Then I get the impression that you are trying to score on the cap of others. It is no longer correct what you are saying here. I would like to discuss this with you, point by point.

Other colleagues will soon say it too. You are talking about pricing. You say you have to be able to count very well. The last amendment was submitted after the discussions.

Mrs. Lalieux is already putting her finger in the air.

Either you have a very short memory and have that component of sustainable development yet done something with your sustainable memory. We then approved an amendment that with the mention of the new price...

With the reference price, yes.

At that time there were three ministers present. None of them could give the correct answer.

At the end of that committee, just before we made those article-based votes... (romor)

Mrs Van der Auwera has the word.

They have trouble making the point. They have very little to overlook if I overlook the presentation of Mrs. Plasman for a moment.

Mr. Landuyt, do not chase you.

The announcement, when indicating the new price, must also indicate the old price or must provide information that allows the average consumer to calculate the reduced price immediately and easily. Now you have to tell me where the difficulty lies.

You just say that the future justice is outcast. We hope that this provision and the jurisprudence that will develop will provide the trader and consumer with the necessary certainty and clarity. Also linked sales. Do you belong to the same party as Freya Vandenbossche, with all those domains such as telecommunications, internet, telephony and television? You haven’t forgotten that yet, right?

What do you say now? I didn’t say we’re opposed to sales.

In recent years, there has been no change with your Minister in terms of trade practices.

It is easy to shoot it off. Europe says link sales are possible. I did not hear you in the committee either.

I said so.

There is clearly already an exception for financial services. We have already talked about real estate. We have voted and the ministers have heard say there are conditions and modalities.

I wonder what you are all here to say! You talk about price increases, about changes in contracts. It has been clearly stated that in contracts of certain duration only price reductions are possible. Modality changes are not possible. It is indefinite duration! That the consumer can break it without cost!

What do you all have to say here? I wonder about that!

I think you didn’t listen well. I said that we understand that, in terms of link sales.

Colleague Plasman, you also reached a point on online shops and distance sales. I think you didn’t listen well either. The truth is that the regulation that is now being changed must ensure, along with the two other prohibitions and restrictions cited above, that there are a lot fewer online shops here than there are in our neighbors, despite the fact that there is indeed a lot being set up.

The Belgian consumer purchases for more than 50% via the internet from foreign shops. So if we want our Belgian merchants, consumers and ⁇ to be stronger in that area, then we must make the legislation more flexible and modern for them and ensure that that branch of sales, of consumption, can also fully flourish.

However, this is at the expense of the consumer.

This is not at the expense of the consumer.

Yes, if you are obliged to pay first. Even worse, if you have to pay online, it is always via credit cards. Only occasionally can you pay through a view account. Who is the dupe of payment through a credit card, on which, after all, interest must be paid? This is ⁇ not a good thing.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, I think you did not listen properly. We understand that according to Europe, link sales should come. In contrast, we suggest that a number of rules should be applied.

But we say that too! There must be a number of conditions and modalities. There are already exceptions for financial services (...)

What about, for example, a 1 euro mobile phone and a 2 or 3 years high-rate mobile phone subscription? In this regard, we believe that a good breakdown arrangement should be developed, which currently does not exist. The law provides that consumer agreements can be concluded. Unfortunately, Mr Van Quickenborne is not there. He went to examine the opportunities for the telecommunications sector, precisely because there are many complaints in that sector.

There is the protocol with the energy suppliers; for changing an energy supplier, such a thing works. This was a precursor to a consumer agreement. It is therefore workable. In terms of price growth, we have a problem with indexing. Indexing in the energy sector is about how it is calculated. So far does the design not go.

We have often discussed this in the committee. I think you are confusing something. You confuse the energy sector and the telecommunications sector. What has always been clearly stated, with each article of this legislation, is that it is a horizontal legislation, Mrs. Plasman.

of course !

When we talk about distance sales... In addition to buying on the Internet, there are other forms.

Of course, these are only examples.

There is the food sector, there is the energy sector. There will still be transposition of European directives. Your focus is always on a particular detail. I think you’re talking about the consumer’s prejudice. I am roughly convinced of that. You want to pretend that the average Belgian has no mind.

You should also follow the questions in the business committee. You should also read the answers there.

Do I get a lesson here?

Our Economic Inspection also has a task to fulfill. I would just stop pretending that the consumer does not even have a bachelor’s degree. This disturbs me greatly.

Mr Van der Auwera, I believe that this draft also applies to energy contracts as regards contracts. It is a horizontal law, but it also applies to it. In the telecommunications sector, as well as in other sectors.

Has the discussion ended?

Yes, Mrs the President.

The [...]

Do not chase yourself!

Ms. Plasman may continue her speech.

It is clear who gets nervous by this design.

Maybe you would like to have consumer affairs?

Speak for yourself, Mrs. Plasman.

I will conclude my speech here. I think everything has been said.

We will vote against this draft.

Since its publication in the Belgian Moniteur, the Act of 1991 on Trade Practices and Consumer Protection has undergone 30 amendments. This law, which became incomprehensible, was to follow the evolution of European law, and in particular to comply with the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, for which Belgium has received a notice for incomplete transposition.

Is it also necessary to recall, ladies and gentlemen, the judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 April 2009 on the joint offer? After more than two years of ministerial negotiations and multiple opinions requested from the Consumer Council, the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs and the Commission on Abusive Clauses, I can only look forward to the text submitted to us tonight.

Certainly, this is a compromise text, in which each of the ministers who took part in the negotiation had to make concessions. This bill provides a good balance between the rights of consumers and those of ⁇ , SMEs and self-employed persons.

It is not my intention to resume the debate we have had in the last few weeks in the committee. Nevertheless, I would like to highlight a few points. First of all, I would like to recall that at their request, liberal professions are excluded from the scope of the law. These professions cannot be assimilated to merchants, as they are subject to very specific obligations. I think in particular of the various Orders and the codes of ethics. However, unfair commercial practices within them will be regulated in a separate law, involving a change to the 2002 Act on Abusive Clauses in Liberal Professions.

Further, as regards distance sales, I consider that the new measure, which consists in authorising payment before the expiration of the consideration period, represents an undeniable advance in the field of trade in Belgium. Let us not forget that, until now, our country was isolated by prohibiting the requirement of payment before the expiry of the reflection period. This puts our traders in a more than unfavorable competitive position. Nowadays, consumers have less time to browse shops and buy more and more through the Internet.

As I have already pointed out, they do so by saving time but also by ease.

I now come to the measures concerning balances in the broad sense – waiting periods and advertising. Overall, I welcome these measures, in particular the one that aims to maintain two periods of annual salaries. The balances help boost our economy and are favorable to consumers, who will continue to do good business, as well as to merchants and freelancers, who generate, for most of them, a third of their annual turnover during these periods.

Finally, a word about the joint offerings. As you know, following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 23 April 2009, the prohibition to practice joint offers has been lifted, provided that they do not constitute an unfair commercial practice. European law is applicable here and the marge of manoeuvre we had was more than small. Even if we regret this judgment of the Court of Justice, as parliamentarians, we are obliged to implement it. Its non-compliance would result in inevitable sanctions and we cannot engage the responsibility of the state.

Convinced that the text that we are proposed to vote today guarantees a good balance between consumer law, free competition and the economic development of independent trade and SMEs, the MR group and I will support this text.

Colleagues, I think there are a lot of good points in this draft, but I am still stumbling on one specific point that I, by the way, absolutely do not understand. I admit in advance that I absolutely do not understand it.

After the conclusion of a purchase contract outside the company of the seller, a period of seven working days applies. Within that period, the seller may not request any advance or payment from the buyer. That prohibition is abolished, except for two categories, the sales at the home of the consumer – I think, for example, the Tupperwareparty’s – and the sales in the context of an excursion. On the other hand, for salons, fairs and exhibitions, payment or advance may be requested. I do not understand that. For internet commerce it is therefore abolished, but for those two sectors that I have mentioned, sales at the home of the consumer and sales in the context of an excursion, that prohibition remains in force.I do not understand that discrimination.

When asked about the explanation, the answer was that it was psychosocial pressure. I absolutely do not understand why there would be more psychosocial pressure when one goes on a bus excursion than when one goes on a bus to a trade fair or exhibition. I ⁇ ’t know what the difference in psychosocial pressure is when things are bought or not. In addition, I do not understand the difference with, for example, online sales. In these two sectors, when one buys a product at the home of the consumer or in the context of an excursion, one can at least yet really tangibly judge the product in question. One can check the quality of the visu and capture it, which one cannot even do in the context of an online trade. I therefore do not understand why consumer protection is stricter in the case of sales at the consumer’s home and sales in the context of an excursion than in the case of online commerce.

There is also psychosocial pressure in telemarketing. You know the saying: “Buy now, here is the phone number; call now, otherwise it can’t be.” There are also the television talk and the advertising with famous people who praise certain products. If all this is not psychosocial pressure, then I don’t know either.

Furthermore, it is remarkable that we are not involved in a European evolution. I refer to two points in this regard.

First, Professor De Bauw was already honored here. I refer to the report-De Bauw of 30 June 2007. I quote from a section about the prohibition in question: “One can ask whether the Belgian consumer needs more protection in this regard than in other EU Member States, where such a prohibition apparently does not apply.” Professor De Bauw is therefore apparently agree with me.

In addition, there is also a new proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the European Council on consumer rights. In that draft it is also clear – I quote again – that “the Member States do not prohibit the parties from fulfilling their obligations under the agreement during the withdrawal period”. This means the previously mentioned seven-day period.

Therefore, there is clearly a European tendency to treat distance sales and direct sales equally in this area. That is why we re-submitted an amendment after we first submitted it to the committee, where it was unfortunately rejected. The amendment provides for equal treatment of all sectors in this area.

I conclude with the words with which Ms. Staelraeve began her speech. Live the true protection, away with the bullying. I fully support her words: away with the bullying, away also with the discrimination. Therefore, I expect that the Vld will approve our amendment with great enthusiasm.

Madam the President, Madam the Minister, Mr the Minister, do we definitely live the reign of the ephemeral? Are our laws doomed to disappear as quickly as we vote for them? We can ask ourselves this question when we see this law of 1991 – just twenty years ago – already condemned to forget. Some of the colleagues who preceded me judged it somewhat harshly: inappropriate law, outdated law. I recall, however, that this law has had merits and that it has regulated a series of commercial activities for years, that it has been completed over the years.

The ephemeral is also due to the fact that we are no longer fully in control of our capacity to legislate. Europe is there, it is a good thing, but Europe imposes rules on us. It does so through directives, but sometimes it does so by taking over powers and legislating across the entire space. In this case, it was about transposing at least fourteen directives and two regulations. In other words, it was necessary to go back to work and see the developments. In twenty years, things have evolved: who knew the internet twenty years ago? Distance sales have grown and sales are internationalized.

This is actually the context in which this bill was submitted and is submitted to us. It is clear that, regardless of the device adopted, the reality is always the same: on the one hand, there are professional operators and, on the other hand, candidate buyers, interested in a commercial operation. The contracts that come together are membership contracts; they are not negotiated word by word, where one has the leisure to say to the other "to take or to leave." Should we stigmatize the first one? not at all. We are all subject to this law, it is thousands, millions of operations that we carry out systematically, without even knowing that they are under the cover of these legal provisions.

Things are evolving. Following the law on "commercial practices", here is the law on "market practice and consumer protection". The scope of the law does not include the liberal professions that are enterprises but it should also be noted that behaviors that are similar to commercial acts or close to such acts of some of our fellow citizens will not be affected. If we put one or the other item for sale on eBay, will we fall under this law if we are not traders and if we trade with someone who is not a trader?

Business operations are multiple and they are carried out in very short time because time is the most important. Time is money; to lose it is to lose money. That means that this law should be updated and restored to the taste of the day. It was necessary to transpose the 14 directives but it was also an idea of the CDH as well as that of other parties. Several parties have expressed themselves. We have waited a long time to do this.

Beyond this law, I would also like to draw your attention to a few elements that I find interesting in this law. Sometimes we see new concepts appear that will be applied in our domestic law. I think of the concept of “average consumer”. We will look for it, try to define it and discover it. What is it? What is his age? What is your sympathy for the business world? This concept will gradually regulate all these commercial transactions in relation to the courts that will be brought to settle possible disputes. If there is no conflict, there is no conflict, and if there is no conflict, there is no need for law. We make laws to protect. If it comes to protecting, the magistrates must be equipped with the capacity to do so. It will be up to them to define, in the light of what Europe tells us, who is this “average consumer”.

Within the framework of this law, many things have been said. I will not remember what my colleagues said. I have no written text. I am just going through a few notes and I wanted to give you a few considerations. Take the example of salaries. Sales are no longer what they used to be: 56% of consumers will make sales as if they were going on a trip. This is a new behavior induced by a series of new situations. The consumer of today is not the consumer of yesterday.

Europe requires us to accept joint offers. We have long discussed this in the committee and conducted extremely interesting discussions on the issue of joint bidding. To counter the abuse of joint offerings, there is what is defined as “unfair practices”. Again, it will be up to the magistrate to determine what these unfair practices are. What is the blunder compared to abuse?

The whole law is based on the principle of information. The consumer must be informed. He must be able to see things clearly and know what he is committed to when making a purchase, even if it is a slightly impulsive purchase.

This approach seems to me logical: it establishes the balance between a market that must be opened, in which goods and ideas must circulate, and consumers that must be protected.

In relation to this law, I have heard thoughts about financial services: in this area, other initiatives will be taken. These are currently being discussed within the government. Minister Reynders announced to the Financial Crisis Committee that a special arrangement would be established for consumer protection in all matters related to finance and financial services, with a reinforcement of controls on the role of financial intermediaries.

Finally, to conclude, it would also be very useful if the government submitted to us shortly its ideas, its or its projects relating to the Consumer Credit Act. Indeed, an important element in market practice is that consumer protection deserves to be taken into consideration according to the evolution of facts, but there remains another aspect: how is it paid? A consumer credit law is therefore extremely important.

If 345,000 Belgians are failing to pay, for large amounts, it is because they are not protected. All measures taken, such as debt mediation, are not sufficient to stop the phenomenon.

So it is positive that my colleagues from the CDH and myself will vote for this law, reminding you of the future appointment with a law on consumer credit.

As I have already said, this bill is far from unnecessary; it concerns us all. This law aims to regulate the commercial relations between the consumer and the trade or market, as it is said today.

I will not repeat all that I have already said about this name change: Mr. Van Quickenborne is not there and it was with him that I developed this debate.

This law aims to find a balance between the absolute necessity of protecting the consumer, especially the most fragile, without thus compromising the freedom of trade. In this regard, Belgium has always distinguished itself by a high level of consumer protection. We were the best in Europe, which we have always been proud of.

This 1991 law, however, had to be revised in depth for reasons of the evolution of our economy, but also to put it in order with European directives – whether you like it or not, Mrs. Plasman – and with a judgment of the European Court of Justice. As legislators, we must comply with these directives.

With regard to new forms of trade, it was necessary to revise this law. I think of the internet trade that was not included there. We must protect the consumer as effectively as possible. This is the problem we have tried to solve in the committee.

We are obviously largely dependent on European legislation, unfortunately rarely at the advantage of the consumer in recent years. Add to this a heavy tendency to chain directives that prevent us from adopting or at least ⁇ ining higher protection rules, which has made and still makes the task of the legislator very unhealthy. It must be acknowledged, both the ministers and we ourselves, we found ourselves in a very difficult carcass, imposed by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The equation remains and will remain very difficult within the framework of future directives.

I would like to return for a moment to one key point for which I had submitted a resolution: the mirage of the joint offer. The joint offer, especially to a service – for example, gsm offer and subscription – is really a mirage and I remain convinced that the consumer will never win. In fact, there is a complexity of offers, for example in telecommunications. Despite all the efforts of regulators, it is now impossible to make comparisons; in short, it is a total lack of transparency that will always benefit ⁇ and never consumers. In addition, it is enough to compare GSM offers in neighboring countries.

We could not do otherwise, since today the joint offer can no longer be banned. Although, in my opinion, the role of a European Court of Justice is not to tell the legislator what to do; maybe a directive! The ministers do not agree with me on this point. In any case, joint offers must comply with the standards on unfair practices. It must be possible to acquire the goods separately. The price information must be clear. There is also the problem of the duration of the contract which I would have liked to see limited in the law.

In addition to this, Mr. George talked about it – ⁇ ining the exclusion of the joint offering for financial and insurance services. Current practices may first need to be clarified as joint offers in the field of financial services are not lacking; for example, mortgage loan with the remaining balance insurance due and bank account. Despite the fact that it is prohibited by law, this practice is widespread within financial and banking institutions. We will conduct this debate when we discuss – hopefully soon – another bill in order to clarify the law for consumers.

In terms of balances, we would have wanted to result in a unification of the display. We leave the price and bar it so that the consumer sees the difference; it is also clearer for the trader.

After a lengthy discussion, this desire to clarify the article concerning the balances was met by the submission of amendments; in fact, the original text was really confusing.

I would like to point out that the landscape is a little less black than what the sp.a says about it. We must welcome the elements that have been ⁇ ined in this bill, including the general consumer information obligation that constitutes the cornerstone of this project.

On the e-commerce level, we welcome the prohibition of opt-out. This will be clearer for the consumer, who will have to explicitly check the options to accept it; there will no longer be automatic choice. The renunciation period goes from seven to fourteen days. For e-commerce, it is obvious that you have to pay, otherwise you will not receive the goods. If you don’t want to grow online commerce, you don’t change anything, Mrs. Plasman, and you put your head in the bag. I think we need to act on this issue because I also want the economic development of Belgium. When all neighboring countries do, we must follow. We have extended the reflection time but we must also accept to pay for the goods.

Finally, we are pleased that the Consumer Ministry remains competent in this matter.

As some have said, we regret the adoption of these directives whose transpositions and harmonisations are maximum. I think we must fight at European level for the abolition of these maximum harmonisations. Otherwise, as much as Europe produces regulations and imposes them heavily on all states.

Ladies and gentlemen, I take advantage of this plenary session to remind you of the possible development, within the framework of the European Presidency, of a directive on consumer rights.

For me, it would not need to be developed, because they want maximum harmonization. For Belgian consumer rights, this harmonisation is likely to be low, given our already very high level. I would like this Parliament to apply the principle of subsidiarity, as the Lisbon Treaty allows it. I ask that Parliament, in advance, within the time limits laid down in the Treaty, take a decision on this Directive on consumer rights, if it ever comes into effect.

Indeed, I do not want to return to the committee or to this tribune to hear the ministers invoke the maximum character of this harmonisation in order to justify our inability to do more than what is prescribed by the directive. I therefore hope that our Parliament will take its subsidiarity responsibilities to act before it is too late at European level.

Finally, I asked the ministers who have the hand on the SPF Economy, Control and Mediation Service to ensure that this new law is properly applied and properly controlled. Thus, I hope that the SPF Economy will be strengthened in its role of inspection.