Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Consumer Protection: Directive 2008/122/EC

February 3, 2009/in /by Marta Requejo
image_pdfimage_print
A Directive on the protection of consumers in respect of certain aspects of timeshare, long-term holiday product, resale and exchange contracts, repealling  Directive 94/47/EC, has been published today (OJ, L, nº 33). The new Directive aims to update Directive 94/47/EC, covering new holiday products similar to timeshare that did not exist in 1994, and also some transactions related to timeshare that were not regulated by the old Directive.
 
The new text differs significantly from the old one. Directive 94/47/EC contained (art. 11) a minimum harmonisation clause, that is, Member States could adopt stricter rules in order to improve consumer protection. The outcome of doing so was a fragmented regulatory framework across the Community that caused significant compliance cost when entering into cross border transactions. The new Directive provides for full harmonisation, though only for certain aspects (sale and resale of timeshares and long-term holiday products, as well as the exchange of rights deriving from timeshare contracts), in which Member States are not allowed to maintain or introduce national legislation diverging from the Directive. Where no harmonised provisions exist, Member States remain free; due to this fact, conflict of laws rules are still needed. In this sense, Whereas 17 specifies that
 
The law applicable to a contract should be determined in accordance with the Community rules on private international law, in particular Regulation (EC) nº 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
 
In spite of this caution, it is still disputable whether consistency with Regulation (EC) nº 593/2008, Rome I, has really been respected. Actually, due to the differences regarding their respective juridical consequence, a careful job of delimitation is to be made between art. 6 of the Regulation (remember para. 1 and 2 shall not apply  to a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property other than a contract relating to the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis within the meaning of Directive 94/47/EC), and Art. 12 of Directive 2008/122/EC, establishing that “2. Where the applicable law is that of a third country, consumers shall not be deprived of the protection granted by this Directive, as implemented in the Member State of the forum if:
– any of the immovable properties concerned is situated within the territory of a Member State or,
– in the case of a contract not directly related to immovable property, the trader pursues commercial or professional activities in a Member State or, by any means, directs such activities to a Member State and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.” Whilst art. 6 Rome I points to the protection provided by the law of the country of the consumer habitual residence, the Directive leans on the law of the forum.
 
Art. 3.4 of the Regulation, providing for the application of provisions of Community law that cannot be derogated from by agreement, when the parties have chosen as applicable law other than that of a Member State and all other elements relevant to the situation  are located in one or more Member States, may also be a source of confusion.
 
The new instrument will enter into force on the 20th day following its publication; Member States shall adopt and publish, by 23 February 2011, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive; they will apply from the same date.
 
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Marta Requejo https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Marta Requejo2009-02-03 11:09:432009-02-03 11:09:43Consumer Protection: Directive 2008/122/EC

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: Rome I: Commission Decision on the UK’s Opt-In Published in the OJ – Response to the UK Government’s Consultation Link to: Rome I: Commission Decision on the UK’s Opt-In Published in the OJ – Response to the UK Government’s Consultation Rome I: Commission Decision on the UK’s Opt-In Published in the OJ –... Link to: Reference from Irish Supreme Court to ECJ: Same Proceedings Pending in a non European State Link to: Reference from Irish Supreme Court to ECJ: Same Proceedings Pending in a non European State Reference from Irish Supreme Court to ECJ: Same Proceedings Pending in a non...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top