Projet de loi portant insertion du livre VI "Pratiques du marché et protection du consommateur" dans le Code de droit économique et portant insertion des définitions propres au livre VI, et des dispositions d'application de la loi propres au livre VI, dans les livres I et XV du Code de droit économique.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- PS | SP the Di Rupo government
- Submission date
- Sept. 24, 2013
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- EC Directive consumer protection contract commercial law sale
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR
- Voted to reject
- N-VA LDD
- Abstained from voting
- VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
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 ¶
Nov. 28, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Karel Uyttersprot ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the present bill is actually the continuation of the codification of economic laws.
The design has a double purpose.
First, the introduction of the Act of 6 April on Market Practices and Consumer Protection into the Code of Economic Law, in which it will appear under the title Book VI. The definitions of Book VI are included in Book I and the legal acts of Book VI are included in Book XV.
Second, the book will also include the provisions of a European Directive on consumer rights. That Directive concerns contracts concluded between a business and a consumer and aims to simplify and harmonise the rules applicable to distance contracts, such as internet and telephone orders, and contracts concluded outside sales premises, such as home sales. It replaces the existing Directives by a single Directive. For example, the withdrawal period from seven to fourteen days is increased for contracts concluded outside of sales premises. There are also limited changes to the solde regulation. Finally, the Code of Economic Law includes a book section on market practices and free professions.
The committee held presentations and asked some questions, among others by colleagues Leen Dierick, Karine Lalieux, Joseph George, Cathy Coudyser, Peter Logghe and myself.
For the rest, I refer to the written report.
I will now formulate some concerns and comments on behalf of our group.
What is now ahead is the draft law aimed at protecting market practices and consumers, which is codified in Book VI. There are few substantial changes to be noted. However, we had expected some changes to be more aligned with the current economic reality. This is actually a law of status quo, in contrast to the rapidly evolving trade in this field.
I would like to go a little deeper into the Articles 25 to 30, more specifically on the salaries and the period of sperm. Soldiers mean two periods of the year, January and July, during which the sale of clothing, leather products and shoes, with loss, is allowed. Such legislation also exists in the countries around us and we can join them. This period is preceded by a month, the suspension period, in which in these sectors sales with discounts are prohibited. In this we are unique. There is no such thing in the countries around us.
I have a few comments on this. First, as regards the position of the State Council, the Court of Cassation and the European Union. The Council of State notes that there are provisions on this subject that are in tune with the Unfair Trade Practices Directive. In fact, in its judgment of 2 November 2012, the Court of Cassation granted direct effect to a European Directive 2005/29 on unfair commercial practices of undertakings towards consumers in the internal market. European law prevails over national law. The European Court of Justice and the European Court of Justice consider the suspension period to be contrary to European legislation. Therefore, it is a pity that the government has not taken advantage of this opportunity to adapt to this.
A second note is that this suspension period is detrimental to our self-employed entrepreneurs. This regulation is outdated and is ⁇ not in the benefit of self-employed entrepreneurs. After all, what was built yesterday is not simply acquired for tomorrow. Legislation should serve people and the economy, but not vice versa. We are facing a changing economic context, but we remain too much with a legislation that is or was. We must dare to challenge outdated federal legislation.
A third note is that this is a discrimination that affects three sectors. The legislation on soldees and soldees concerns only the sectors of clothing, footwear and leather products, which may not offer discounts one month before the soldees period.
They do not allow an entrepreneur to manage and manage his business efficiently. Those who are engaged must be able to anticipate what will happen to them. A clothing store should be able to adjust its own pricing policy according to the market, weather conditions, opportunity. Those who receive their winter collection in August or September should be able to update and conduct a campaign in November or December, instead of having to wait until January to sell with loss.
Fourth, this is a legislation with holes. From a legal point of view, the legislation on the suspension period troubles in many areas and opens a lot of backdoors. The present bill stipulates, like the existing law, that clothing and shoe shops may not display discounts, but that they may communicate discounts orally if the customer asks for them, the so-called whisper shops. Announcements of price reductions are permitted at occasional trade events, the so-called braderies. Furthermore, the law only refers to a ban on public announcement of price reductions. As a result, our mailbox and our mailbox today are filled with personalized announcements, which are outside the law.
Our entrepreneurs still lack the tools to meet new challenges and manage their business properly. Electronic trade puts the barrier period on the slope. E-commerce is a threat for one, a huge challenge for another, but the current legislation does not give entrepreneurs the opportunity to anticipate. Kapaza, Zalando, Amazon, and others, come down on us. Clothing, leather products and shoes account for 45% of the online trade. The online shops are open 7 days on 7 days, 24 hours on 24. Windowing, in which customers are informed in the store and then search through the network for the most favorable price offer, is shaving and inserting.
The online shops are mainly international, and are not covered by this law. I give a few examples. Zalando currently offers discounts of up to 70% until 30 December 2013 and Amazon offers discounts of 60% or 70% on brand items such as Mango. Against these discounts, which also apply in the sperm period, there is little to do.
The current legislation thus puts self-employed persons in the wing and can therefore no longer be applied.
What kind of entrepreneurship do we want to support? We want to go for a company that can be well managed, where one can watch over daily inventories, profit margins, creativity and initiative. Our answer is that this legislation clearly no longer complies with this. We are in favour of balances, but the legislation on the block period is outdated.