Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 6kWORD 18k
19 April 2018
Question for written answer E-002201-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Richard Sulík (ECR)

 Subject:  Enforcement of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive — absence of a supervisory body in Slovakia for the food sector
 Answer in writing 

The Member States are responsible for enforcing Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. For the food sector, the State Veterinary and Food Administration of the Slovak Republic (SVFA) was notified to the Commission as the competent Slovak body responsible for implementing the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, under which the issue of dual quality falls.

On the website www.svps.sk/zakladne_info/podania_podnety.asp, however, the SVFA states that enforcement of the applicable legislation on unfair practices in relation to food falls within the competence of the Slovak Trade Inspection (STI). The STI, however, states expressly on its website https://bit.ly/2Hveymy that it is not responsible for policing unfair practices in the food sector and that the competent body is the SVFA.

1. Is the Commission monitoring only formal fulfilment of the obligation to notify the competent body or also the actual situation regarding enforcement, for example whether it is acting in accordance with the obligations imposed on it by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in order to achieve the consumer protection provided for in the directive?

2. Given that the Commission is actively addressing the issue of dual quality products, is it preparing a study on the policing of unfair practices in the Member States?

3. If the supervisory body responsible for enforcement and notified to the Commission fails to provide any information to consumers in Slovakia and even states expressly that it is not responsible for enforcing Directive 2005/29/EC, is this compliant with the directive?

Original language of question: SK 
Last updated: 8 May 2018Legal notice