Doslovný zápis z rozpráv

Pondelok, 10. januára 2005 - Štrasburg

14. Podpora predaja na vnútornom trhu

  Die Präsidentin. Nach der Tagesordnung folgt nun die mündliche Anfrage an die Kommission zur Verkaufsförderung im Binnenmarkt, gestellt von der Fraktion der Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten für Europa und der Fraktion der Europäischen Volkspartei.

  Newton Dunn (ALDE), Author. – Madam President, I am very grateful to the Commissioner for being here to help us with this question. Originally, it was to be put to the Council and the Commission together, because the proposal, which has passed its first reading in Parliament, has been blocked in the Council for far too long. The purpose of the question and debate was to get the Council to explain why it is blocked and what it is doing to move it forwards and get it back to Parliament to benefit the public. Unfortunately, the Conference of Presidents, in its wisdom, has readjusted this proposal for this debate and we are now putting the question to the Commission only. The Council is not here at all, but I suppose that half a debate is better than none!

This is a proposal on sales promotions. In each of the 25 Member States there are different national laws about what is permitted – loss leaders, three for two, giving away free samples. There is no single internal market in the rights of retailers who cross frontiers to operate with the same offers and commercial tools right across the Union. The original Commission proposal – a thoroughly good one – was to have a single market in sales promotion techniques.

This goes back originally to the 1992 Single Market proposal. As far as I know, this was first proposed in a Green Paper in 1996 – eight years ago. It passed its first reading in 2002 – two-and-a-half years ago – but, since then, we have been waiting for the Council to move.

There are obvious benefits if we can get this through. More competition and choice for the public, lower prices and more transparency. For retailers, there would be more flexibility across the whole single market, and another tool for marketing and doing business, creating wealth and generating jobs.

But so long as we do not have cross-border facilities here, costs are higher because retailers have to market different plans for each of the 25 Member States. The recent report on the Lisbon Strategy highlighted the internal market as one of the priorities, and this is part of the internal market.

There are concerns about the treatment of children and small businesses, and that would be part of the proposal that we are anxious to deal with.

The questions I must put to the Commissioner are twofold – the Council meets in secret and Parliament cannot be there, but at least the Commissioner gets to sit in the Council, so he can tell us what is going on. Firstly, how can we move this through the Council and get it moving again for the benefit of the citizens? Secondly, since the proposal was drawn up some years ago, the euro has flourished and e-commerce – trading via the Internet – has developed enormously, the committee would like to know whether the proposal as originally put forward by the Commission is still valid today or has been overtaken by events? Also, do the proposed directive on services and the proposed directive on unfair commercial practices interfere with the original proposal on sales promotions? We would like a new view on where the Sales Promotion Directive now stands. Does it need revision or do we just need to push the Council into action as fast as possible?

  Harbour (PPE-DE), Author. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr Newton Dunn, who has taken over what we hope will be the rapporteurship for the second reading, for encouraging us to work together to move this question. It was a shame we could not get the whole committee's support, but it is nevertheless important that we give you, Commissioner, the opportunity to hear where we stand on this.

I would like to reflect on one or two points, to build on what Mr Newton Dunn said about the economic importance of this issue. Those of us who want to push for the completion of the internal market as the cornerstone of the Lisbon Strategy, as set out in the Kok Report and in so many reports from the Council, would like you to tell us from the inside why it is that Member State governments, whose prime ministers attend these great Council meetings and make statements about the importance of completing the internal market – and particularly the internal market for services – are extraordinarily reluctant, when invited to give consumers the opportunity to access sales promotions, discount offers and other product promotions offered in another country of the European Union, to make these available to their own consumers?

I pay tribute to Mr Brinkhorst, the Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs, because I know he took the Sales Promotion Regulation very seriously and was equally baffled about the lack of progress. I recall that he told our committee that we had surely reached the stage in the development of the internal market where Member States have to start trusting each other. What could be more fundamental when asking for trust than saying that consumer protection legislation which allows sales promotions in one country, is equally applicable to another?

How can the attitudes of consumers in one country to promotions which they are allowed to access, whether it is a discount promotion or a promotional game, or an annual sale at a certain time, differ from those in another? We have an extraordinary situation in which, within markets that are very close together, there are different conditions in stores because of different sales promotion regulations.

The bafflement that has led to this question arises from wondering how Member States can say they are serious about creating an internal market and serious about having a single regulation on unfair commercial practices, when they are unwilling to allow consumers to access these rights and trust each other. That is the fundamental question.

Commissioner, I imagine you are as baffled about it as we are. Together we may be able to solve some of the problems.

  McCreevy, Commission. The proposal for a regulation on sales promotions that was strongly supported by this House two years ago is a key internal market initiative linked to the achievement of a smooth-running internal market for services. I am therefore pleased to see that Parliament has maintained its interest in this text in spite of the fact that the Council is still considering it.

Sales promotions are key tools to market goods and services. They cover discounts of all forms: premium offers, free gifts, promotional contests and promotional games. They are a tool for entering into new markets with innovative products or services, for encouraging customer loyalty, for stimulating competitive actions, or for efficiently managing stocks, to name just a few areas in which sales promotions are crucial. Their design, execution and communication accounts for a large number of jobs in the EU, with investments representing billions of euro.

Sales promotions are essential to the development of cross-border trade in products and services within the internal market. This is particularly true for small- and medium-sized enterprises in their development of new markets. Yet the free movement of goods and services is seriously hindered due to a myriad of different national rules governing sales promotions.

I wish to assure you that the Commission has made its best efforts to assist the successive presidencies-in-office of the Council to achieve a political agreement. In particular, the Commission has shown great flexibility in terms of the two key remaining issues, which are the choice of the legal instrument and the inclusion of a mutual recognition clause in the text.

As regards the implications of the Lisbon Strategy, it is clear that if the current position were not to alter, then this impasse would suggest that the Council would be unable to achieve the internal market commitments it has set itself in that context. However, the Commission does not believe that the negotiations on this text are over.

The alternative to harmonisation will be Court rulings that would lift the identified disproportionate restrictions, but this will not harmonise provisions that achieve a high level of consumer protection, including the protection of minors. The Commission trusts that the Council will not find this a satisfactory proposition. The Commission will therefore continue work with the incoming presidency with a view to finding a solution that brings about a genuine single market for sales promotions.

  Patrie (PSE), au nom du groupe. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, la proposition de règlement relatif aux promotions des ventes a connu, vous le savez, depuis le début du processus de débat, de nombreux avatars puisqu'elle a été repoussée pas moins de quatre fois par le Conseil depuis trois ans.

Mais comment s'en étonner? On ne peut, en effet, pas s'étonner de ces blocages persistants dès lors que plus personne ne perçoit clairement quelles sont les options prises par la Commission en matière de droits européens de la consommation malgré l'adoption, il y a bientôt deux ans, en mars 2003, du livre vert sur la protection des consommateurs.

A-t-on encore l'ambition d'avoir un jour un droit de la consommation harmonisé, comme semble promouvoir la directive sur les pratiques commerciales déloyales, ou bien a-t-on tout bonnement renoncé à une quelconque harmonisation comme paraît le démontrer le projet de directive sur les services dans le marché intérieur?

À ce flou sur la stratégie, s'ajoute, si je puis dire, une certaine confusion sur les concepts et en particulier sur des concepts-clés comme la clause de marché intérieur, la reconnaissance mutuelle, ou ce fameux principe du pays d'origine auquel les projets de texte font alternativement référence, sans que l'on sache très bien pourquoi on a choisi, dans quel cas, tel principe plutôt que tel autre et quels en seront les avantages tant pour les entreprises que pour les consommateurs.

Dès lors, on comprend bien que les États qui disposent de législations particulièrement protectrices pour les consommateurs hésitent à lâcher la proie pour l'ombre et à souscrire sans réserve à un système qui, quelle que soit la manière dont on l'appelle – reconnaissance mutuelle ou principe du pays d'origine – aboutira immanquablement à du dumping juridique, c'est-à-dire à un alignement progressif des législations nationales sur les moins-disantes d'entre elles.

Aussi, tant que des réponses claires ne seront pas données à ces questions préalables, tant qu'un travail de mise en cohérence des différents textes en cours n'est pas réalisée, je ne vois pas bien, pour ma part, l'urgence qui s'attache à obtenir un accord politique sur cette proposition de règlement et, pour le dire de façon triviale, il est urgent d'attendre.

Enfin, subsiste également le désaccord sur l'outil juridique, comme vous venez de le souligner, Monsieur le Commissaire. Ce n'est pas un simple point de procédure, puisque le choix du règlement plutôt que de la directive demeure pour moi contestable dans un domaine où, compte tenu de sensibilités culturelles extrêmement fortes, comme on l'a vu sur la question des soldes, il conviendrait de donner des marges de souplesse aux États membres.

Enfin, soyons sérieux! Cessons d'invoquer à tout bout de champ la nécessaire relance de la stratégie de Lisbonne et de feindre de croire que la création de millions d'emplois en Europe est suspendue à la réglementation des jeux, concours promotionnels et autres chèques commerciaux. La stratégie de Lisbonne vaut mieux que cela. Dès lors, qu'on reconnaisse d'égale valeur ces trois piliers: compétitivité, mais également développement social et protection de l'environnement!