Proposition 53K2610

Projet de loi portant insertion du livre IX. "Sécurité des produits et des services" dans le Code de droit économique et portant insertion des définitions propres au livre IX dans le livre Ier du Code de droit économique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Jan. 18, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection labelling goods and services commercial law product safety company law legal code

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA

Abstained from voting

LDD VB

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 ¶

March 14, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to the written report.

The draft law largely refers to the provisions of the Act of 1994 on the safety of products and services. It is also the transposition of the European Directive of 2001 on general product safety.

The law is aimed at a preventive approach to the safety of users and it also provides for measures that the government can take to prevent dangerous products and services from economic circulation.

However, the present draft law, which fits into the larger whole of the new economic code, cannot be approved in its present form.

We have already made several comments during the discussion in the committee, and even today we would like to raise some questions.

It is clear that our economic legislation needs to be renewed, but again we miss the exercise of efficiency, and that was nevertheless the original purpose of the revision of this code.

We again get the impression that it has become just cutting and gluing work, but no work that will withstand the tooth of time.

Therefore, I would like to list here the main reasons for voting against.

We consider it important, in the first place, to include, in addition to the reference to products, which are material goods, also in an equal manner the provision of services in the scope when it comes to considering the risk factor.

An increasing part of our economy no longer consists of merely trading of goods, of material products, but also and above all of providing services. We submitted an amendment to this committee, but it was rejected.

Nevertheless, the Council of State also points out in various observations the need for a clear description and also a clear incorporation of products but above all also of services.

However, the concepts are often used confusingly in this bill and are not always consistent and coherent.

A second reason is that the applicants of this draft law argue that a harmonised standard is at all times a non-binding national standard of a Member State, with a view to transposing a European standard. We would like to point out a gap. The harmonisation of different national standards at EU level is, by definition, always aimed at creating a single equivalent standard across borders. The Lisbon Treaty states this with so many words. De facto this means that the EU does indeed impose mandatory regulations on the Member States. The Member State must conform its legislation to the standardisation initiated by the EU. We should therefore include both non-binding and binding standards in the draft. The State Council points out that this logic is not always followed.

Finally, we ask questions about the establishment of the Central Notification Point for products within the FOD Economy. To what extent is this notification point in contact with the other departments of the FOD? To what extent is it in contact with consumers and with consumer organisations? There is a lack of efficiency exercise. Here double work is done.

Another question is to what extent this information is known.

Because of these questions and concerns, we will not approve this bill.