Category Archives: Single market for capital

With the free movement of people, goods and services, the free movement of capital is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU. Making this a reality as of 1 July 1990 was the first stage towards economic and monetary union which culminated in the introduction of the euro.

Internal Market

Internal Market

Internal Market Contents

  • Internal market: general framework
  • Living and working in the internal market: Free movement of people, asylum and immigration, free movement of workers
  • Single Market for Goods: Free movement of goods, technical harmonisation, product labelling and packaging, consumer safety, pharmaceutical and cosmetic products, chemical products, motor vehicles, construction, external dimension
  • Single market for services: Free movement of services, professional occupations, services of general interest, transport, Information Society, postal services, financial services, banks, insurance, securities markets
  • Single market for capital: Free movement of capital, economic and monetary union, economic and private stakeholders, fiscal aspects, combating fraud, external relations
  • Businesses in the internal market: Company law, public procurement, intellectual property

See also

Living and working in the internal market.
Overviews of European Union: Internal market.
Further information: the Internal Market and Services Directorate-General of the European Commission.

Consumer credit agreements

Consumer credit agreements

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Consumer credit agreements

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Internal market > Single market for capital

Consumer credit agreements

Document or Iniciative

Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC.

Summary

This Directive aims to harmonise the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States covering credit for consumers, in order to facilitate cross-border services. It shall increase the transparency of contractual conditions and improve the level of consumer protection.

However the Directive is not applicable to credit agreements that are:

  • secured by a mortgage;
  • concluded for the purchase of land or immovable property;
  • whose total amount is less than 200 euros or more than 75 000 euros;
  • relating to lease or hire where there is no obligation to purchase;
  • granted free of interest, without other charges or in the form of an overdraft facility;
  • concluded with an investment company;
  • the result of a judicial ruling;
  • linked to the payment or to the surety of a debt;
  • linked to loans granted to a limited group of the public.

Member States may also apply a less restrictive regime to organisations with social aims and activities that only profit their members, where they offer an annual percentage rate of charge which is lower than the current market rate.

During the pre-contractual phase,the creditor * or their intermediaries * must supply clear information on the main features of the credit offered in due course. In particular, this concerns:

  • the duration of the credit agreement;
  • the total amount of credit;
  • the borrowing rate and rates relating thereto;
  • the annual percentage rate of charge * and the total amount owed by the consumer *;
  • the amount, number and frequency of instalments;
  • the cash price for goods or services supplied against specific payment terms or a linked credit agreement;
  • costs linked to or resulting from the agreement;
  • contractual obligations;
  • consumer rights;
  • the consequences of late payments and defaults;
  • sureties.

Consumers shall receive this information in a standard form as stipulated in Annexe II of the Directive.

Apart from an obligation to supply comprehensive pre-contractual information, creditors must supply consumers with adequate explanations so that the latter may choose a contract which corresponds to their needs and to their financial situation. In addition creditors must evaluate the solvency of their clients before concluding an agreement, whilst also respecting the right of consumers to be informed when their request for credit is rejected.

The contract must restate the main information relating to the credit offer chosen. If the borrowing rate is modified *, the consumer must be informed of the new amount, the number and frequency of instalments.

Consumers may exercise their right to withdraw by notifying the creditor of their intention, without having to justify their decision. This must take place within fourteen days from the conclusion of the agreement.

Consumers also have the right to make early repayment of their debt. They can exercise this right at any time, as long as the creditor receives fair compensation which is objectively justified.

Member States shall ensure that creditors and credit intermediaries fulfil their obligations. They shall ensure that audits are carried out by an independent authority.

Context

This Directive repeals Directive 87/102/EEC in order to strengthen consumer protection. It must be implemented in Member States before 2 May 2010.

Key terms of the Act
  • Creditor: any natural or legal person who grants or promises to grant credit in the course of their trade, business or profession.
  • Credit intermediary: a natural or legal person who does not act as a creditor and who, in the course of their trade, business or profession:
    1. presents or offers credit agreements to consumers;
    2. assists consumers by carrying out preparatory work for agreements;
    3. concludes credit agreements with consumers on behalf of the creditor.
  • Total amount payable by the consumer: the sum of the total amount of the credit and the total cost of the credit to the consumer.
  • Annual percentage rate of charge: the total cost of the credit to the consumer, expressed as an annual percentage of the total amount of credit.
  • Borrowing rate: the interest rate expressed as a fixed or variable percentage applied on an annual basis to the amount of credit drawn down.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition into the Member States Official Journal

Directive 2008/48/EC

11.6.2008

12.5.2010

L 133/66 of 22.5.2008

Resources

Further Reading

  • AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa. Atti del Conv egno internazionale dedicato alla memoria de Alberto Trabucchi, Milano, Cedam, 2002.
  • ALPA, G., “Autonomia privata e «garanzie» commerciali”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 109 y ss.
  • ALPA, G./DE NOVA, G., y otros, L´acquisto di beni de consumo, Milano, 2002.
  • AMADIO, G., “La conformità al contrato tra garanzia e responsabilità”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 2 y ss.
  • AMADIO, G., “Difetto di conformità e tutele sinallagmatiche”, Riv. dir. civ., 2001, I, pp. 863 y ss.
  • AMADIO, G., “Conformità al contratto e tutele satisfattorie”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 151 y ss.
  • AMATO, C., Per un diritto europeo dei contratti con i consumatori, Milano, Giuffrè, 2003.
  • AMTENBRINK, F./SCHNEIDER, C., “Die europaweite Vereinheitlichung von Verbrauchsgüterkauf und –garantien”, VuR, 1996, pp. 367 y ss.
  • AMTENBRINK, F./SCHNEIDER, C., “Europäische Vorgaben für ein neues Kaufrecht und deutsche Schuldrechtsrecofr”, VuR, 1999, pp. 293 y ss.
  • ANDERS, “Zur Reform des Kaufrechts”, ZRP, 2000, pp. 293 y ss.
  • ARNOLD, S./Hannes UNBERATH, H., “Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf in England”, ZEuP, 2004, n.º 2, pp. 366 y ss.
  • BALDUS, C., Binnenkonkurrenz kaufrechtlicher Sachmängelansprüche nach Europarecht, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag, 1999.
  • BALL, “Neues Gewährleistungsrecht beim Kauf ”, ZGS, 2002, pp. 49 y ss.
  • BAMBERGER, H. G./ROTH, H., Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Band 1, München, Beck, 2003.
  • BÄRENZ, “Die Auslegung der überschießenden Umsetzung von Richtlinien am Beispiel des Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des Schuldrechts”, DB, 2003, pp. 375 y ss.
  • BEMMANN, “Der Pferdekauf im Jahr nach der Schuldrechtsreform”, AUR, 2003, pp. 233 y ss.
  • BERESKA, “Der neue Lieferantenregress nach §§ 478, 479 BGB. Eine Arbeitshilfe”, ZGS, 2002, pp. 59 y ss.
  • BERGMANN, N., “Die Umsetzung der Verbrauchersgüterkaufrichtlinie 1999/44/EG in Italien: ein neuen Paragrapg im Codice civile”, en Jahrbuch für italienisches Recht, 2003, pp. 261 y ss.
  • BERNARDEAU, L., “Harmonisation minimale et droit applicable”, en J.
  • BERTI, C., La vendita dei beni di consumo Commentario breve agli artt. 1519-bis ss.cc. (Artt. 1519-bis – 1519-nonies c.c.), Milano, Giuffrè, 2004.
  • BIANCA, C. M., “Consegna di aliud pro alio e decadenza dai rimedi por omessa denunzia nella direttiva 1999/44/CE”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 16 y ss.
  • BIANCA, C. M., “L´attuazione della directtiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 103 y ss.
  • BIN, M., “Per un dialogo con il futuro legislatore dell´attuazione: ripensare l´intera disciplina della non conformità dei beni nella vendita alla luce della direttiva comunitaria”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 403 y ss.
  • BIN, M./CALVO, R./CIATTI, A./DELOGU, L., “Un progetto per l’attuazione in Italia della direttiva 1999/44/CE (dalla redazione torinese della rivista)”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 156 y ss.
  • BIN, M./LUMINOSO, A., Le garanzie nella vendita dei beni di consumo, Padova, Cedam, 2003.
  • BOCCHINI, F., “La tutela del consumatore nella vendita tra piazze diverse”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 161 y ss.
  • BOCCHINI, F., “La vendita tra piazze diverse di beni di consumo”, Riv. dir. civ., 2002, II, pp. 2 y ss.
  • BÖHLE, J., Der Rückgriff in der Lieferkette gemäss der §§ 478, 479 BGB nach dem Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 2004.
  • BONFANTE, G./CAGNASSO, O., “Risoluzione del contratto ed “azione di adempimento” quali strumento di tutela del consumatoreo dell’impresa?”, Contr. Impr./Eur., pp. 23 y ss.
  • BRAMBRING, “Wer schützt den Verbraucher vor dem Verbraucherschutz?”, ZNotP, 2003, pp. 42 y ss.
  • BRÜGGEMEIER, G., “Zur Reform des deutschen Kaufrechts – Herausforderungen durch die EG-Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie”, JZ, 2000,pp. 529 y ss.
  • BRÜGGEMEIER, G., “Zur Reform des deutschen Kaufrechts – Herausforderungen durch die EG-Verbrauchersgüterkaufrichtlinie”, JZ, 2000, pp. 529 y ss.
  • BRÜGGEMEIER, G., “Das neue Kaufrecht des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches”, WM, 2002, pp. 1376 y ss.
  • BUCK, “Kaufrecht”, en WESTERMANN (Coord.), Das Schuldrecht, 2002, pp. 105 y ss.
  • BÜDENBENDER, U., “Das Kaufrecht nach dem Schuldrechtsreformgesetz (Teil II)”, DStR, 2002, pp. 361 y ss.
  • BÜDENBENDER, U., “Die Bedeutung der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie für das deutsche Kaufrecht nach der Schuldrechtsreform”, ZEuP, 2004, n.º 1, pp. 49 y ss.
  • CABELLA PISU, L., Vendita, vendite: quale riforma delle garanzie?”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 34 y ss.
  • CALAIS-AULOY, J., “De la garantie des vices cachés à la garantie de conformité”, Mélanges Ch. Mouly, 1998, t. 2, pp. 63 y ss.
  • CALLIES, G.-P., “Nach der Schuldrechtsreform: Perspektiven des deutschen, europäischen und internationalen Verbrauchervertragsrechts”, AcP, 2003, n.º 4/5, pp. 575 y ss.
  • CALVAO DA SILVA, Venda de bens de consumo. Comentário, Coimbra, 2003.
  • CALVO, R., “L´attuazione della direttiva n. 44 del 1999: una ‘chance’ per la revisione in senso unitario della disciplina sulle garanzie e rimedi nella vendita”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 463 y ss.
  • CALVO, R., “Nota a margine del convegno di Padova dedicato alla memoria di Alberto Trabucchi su “L’attuazione della direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 419 y ss.
  • CANARIS, C.-W., “L´attuazione in Germania della direttiva concernente la vendita di beni de consumo”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 235 y ss.
  • CANARIS, C.-W., “Die Nacherfüllung durch Lieferung einer mangelfreien Sache beim Stückkauf”, JZ, 2003, pp. 831 y ss.
  • CIATTI, A., “L’àmbito di aplicazione ratione materiae della direttiva comunitaria sulla vendita e le garanzie dei beni di consumo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 433 y ss.
  • CIGINI, S., “L’avant-projet sull’attuazione nel diritto francese della direttiva n. 44 del 1999”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2003, pp. 902 y ss.
  • CORAPI, D., “La direttiva 99/44/CE e la Convenzione di Vienna sulla vendita internazionale: verso un nuovo diritto comune della vendita?”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 135 y ss.
  • COSTANZA, M., “La direttiva 99/44: art. 3 e obblighi di pagamento del compradore”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 185 y ss.
  • CUGINI, S., “L’avant-projet sull’attuazione nel diritto francese della direttiva n. 44 del 1999”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2003, n.º 2, pp. 902 y ss.
  • CZIESIELSKY, M., Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie und amerikanisches Gewährleistungsrecht im Vergleich, Hamburg, Kovac, 2003.
  • DE CRISTOFARO, G., Difetto di conformità al contratto e diritti del consumatore. L´ordinamento italiano e la direttiva 99/44/CE sulla vendita e le garanzie dei beni di consumo, Padova, Cedam, 2000.
  • DE CRISTOFARO, G., “L´esonero de responsabilità del venditore per i difetti di conformità che il consumatore conosceva o non poteva ragionevolmente ingorare «al momento della conclusione del contrato»: brevi note su taluni aspetti problematici dell´attuazione dell´art. 2, par. 3, della direttiva 99/44/CE”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 201 y ss.
  • DE MATTEIS, R., “Il difetto di conformità e l’equilibrio contrattuale dello scambio”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 46 y ss.
  • DE NOVA, G., “La proposta di direttiva sulla vendita e la garanzia dei beni di consumo”, Riv. dir. priv., 1997, pp. 22 y ss.
  • DE NOVA, G., “La recezione della Direttiva sulle garanzie nella vendita di beni di consumo: vincoli, ambito de applicazione, difetto de conformità”, Riv. dir. priv., 2001, pp. 759 y ss.
  • DE NOVA, G., “La recepzione della direttiva sulle garanzie nella vendita dei beni de consumo: vincoli, ambito di applicazione, difetto di conformità”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 33 y ss.
  • DE SAINT DIDIER, C., “La directive 1999/44 du 25 mai 1999 sur certains aspects de la vente et des garanties des biens de consommation: impact pour les professionnels”, en J. LETE ACHIRICA (Ed.), Garantías en la venta de bienes de consumo. Les garanties dans la vente de biens de consommation, Santiago de Compostela, Ed. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2004, pp. 277 y ss.
  • DELL’AQUILA, G./PARADISI, G., “La Direttiva 1999/44/CE, in materia di garanzie post-vendita a tutela dei consumatori, e il diritto vigente”, Disciplina del commercio, 2001, pp. 44 y ss.
  • DELOGU, L., “La proposta modificata di direttiva del Parlamento europeo del Consiglio sulla vendita e le garanzie dei beni di consumo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 1998, pp. 1039 y ss.
  • DELOGU, L., “Il patti modificativi della responsabilità del venditore: la direttiva 1999/44/CE, l’odierno diritto italiano e le prospettive di riforma”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 489 y ss.
  • DI MAJO, A., “Garanzia e inadempimiento nella vendita di beni di consumo”, Europa e dir. priv., 2002, pp. 1 y ss.
  • DI MAJO, A., “Il sistema dei rimedi: risoluzione del contratto, riduzione del prezzo e pretese risarcitoria”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 83 y ss.
  • DI PAOLA, L., “Vendita di beni de consumo: si rafforzano le garanzie per l´acquirente”, Le nuove leggi civile commentate, 2002, n.º 2-3, pp. 309 y ss.
  • DIEZ-PICAZO, L., “I problemi della attuazione della direttiva 1999/44/CE nei diritti nazionali”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 255 y ss.
  • DOEHNER, R., Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund der Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie. die Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zu bestimmten Aspekten des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs und der Garantien für Verbrauchsgüter und ihre Auswirkungen auf das deutsche Recht, Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlag, 2004.
  • EBERSOHL, J. N., Vertragsfreiheit und Verbrauchererschutz in der schwedischen Gesetzgebung der letzten Jahrzenhnte. Zum skandinavischen Einfluss aud das Europäische Verbraucherschtuzrecht, Göttingen, V & R Unipress, 2003.
  • ECCHER, B., “Il recepimento della direttiva 99/44/CE nell´ordinamento giuridico austriaco”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 263 y ss.
  • ECCHER, B./SCHURR, F. A., “Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 99/44/EG über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf in Italien”, ZEuP, 2003, n.º 1, pp. 65 y ss.
  • ECCHER, B./SCHURR, F. A., “Die Richtlinie 99/44/EG und das Neur Kaufrecht in Italien”, en Jahrbuch für italienisches Recht, 2003, pp. 3 y ss.
  • EGER, T., “Einige ökonomische Aspekte der Europäischen Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie und ihrer Umsetzung in deutsches Recht”, German Working Papers in Law and Economics, 2002-1-1032 (disponible en https://ideas.repec.org/p/bep/dewple/2002-1-1032.html).
  • EGGERT, “An- und Verkauf gebrauchter Kraftfahrzeuge nach der Schuldrechtreform”, ZAP, n.º 3, pp. 375 y ss.
  • EHMANN, H./RUST, U., “Die Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie”, JZ, 1999, pp. 853 y ss.
  • ELVINGER, “La Directive 99/44 du 25 Mai 1999 et le droit Luxembourgeois”, ERPL, 2001, n.º 2-3, pp. 309 y ss.
  • EMMERICH, Das Recht der Leistungsstörungen, 5ª ed., München, Beck, 2003.
  • ERNST/GSELL, “Kaufrechtsrichtlinie und BGB”, ZIP, 2000, pp. 1410 y ss.
  • ERNST/GSELL, “Kritisches zum Stand der Schuldrechtsmodernisierung”, ZIP, 2001, pp. 1389 y ss.
  • FABER, W., “Zur Richtlinie bezüglich Verbrauchsgüterkauf und Garantien für Verbrauchersgüter”, JBl, 1999, pp. 413 y ss.
  • FABER, W., Handbuch zum neuen Gewährleistungsrecht, 2001.
  • FADDA, R., “Il contenuto della direttiva 1999/44/CE: una panoramica”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 410 y ss
  • FALZONE CALVISI, M. G., “Garanzie legali della vendita: quale riforma?”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 448 y ss.
  • FELLER, “Sachmängel beim Kauf ”, MittBayNot, 2003, pp. 82 y ss.
  • FERRANTE, “Die neuen Vorschriften des italienischen Codice Civile über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, VuR, 2003, pp. 165 y ss.
  • FERRANTE, “Die Umsetzung des Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie 1999/44/EG im italienischen Recht. Einige Bemerkungen zu den neuen Regelungen del Verbraucherschutzes”, RIW, 2003, pp. 570 y ss.
  • FERREIRA DE ALMEIDA, “Orientaçoes de politica legislativa adoptadas pela Directiva 1999/44/CE sobre venda de bens de consumo. Comparaçao com o direito vigente”, Themis, 2001, n.º 4, pp. 109 y ss.
  • FERRI, G. B., “Divagazioni intorno alla direttiva n. 44 del 1999 su taluni aspetti della vendita e delle garanzie dei beni di consumo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 51 y ss.
  • GALLO, P., “Le garanzie nella vendita di beni al consumo. Prospettive e riforma alla luce della direttiva 1999/44 CE”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 78 y ss.
  • GAROFALO, L., “Le azioni edilizie e la direttiva 1999/44/CE”, en S.
  • MAZZAMUTO, Il contratto e le tutele. Prospettive di diritto europeo,Torino, 2002, pp. 500 y ss.
  • MAZZAMUTO, (Coord.), Commentario alla disciplina della vendita dei beni de consumo, Padova, 2003.
  • MAZZAMUTO, “L´attuazione della direttiva 1999/44/CE in Italia”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 237 y ss.
  • GASS, P., “Die Schuldrechtsüberarbeitung nach der politischen Entscheidung zum Inhalt der Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, en U. DIEDERICHSEN (Coord), Festschrift für Walter Roland zum 70. Geburstag, 1999, pp. 131 y ss.
  • GENOVESE, A., “Le garanzie dei beni di consumo, la direttiva 99/44/CE e il diritto spagnolo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2002, pp. 1103 y ss.
  • GERKENS, J./PIRSON, V., “Die Umsetzung der Kaufrechtsrichtlinie (1999/44/EG) in Belgien”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 169 y ss.
  • GHESTIN. J., “Osservazioni provvisorie sul recepimento della direttiva sulla vendita de beni de consumo nel diritto francese”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 273 y ss.
  • GIARDINI, F., “La conservazione del contratto e l´impostazione essenzialmente civilistica del legisladore comunitario nella direttiva 99/44/CE. Profili di comparazione giuridica”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 205 y ss.
  • GLINSKI/ROTT, “Umweltfreundliches und ethisches Konsumverhalten im harmonisierten Kaufrecht”, EuZW, 2003, pp. 649 y ss.
  • GRAF VON WESTPAHLEN, F. (Dir.), Handbuch des Kaufvertragsrechts in den EG-Staaten, Köln, 1992.
  • GRAF VON WESTPAHLEN, F., “Die Umsetzung der Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie im Blick auf den Regress zwischen Händler und Hersteller”, DB, 1999, pp. 2552 y ss.
  • GRAVANTE, “Die Regelung des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs – Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf in das italienische Recht”, EuLF, 2002, pp. 356 y ss.
  • GRUBER, M., “Die Umsetzumg der Verbrauchersgüterkauf-Richtlinie in Österreich”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 153 y ss.
  • GRUNDMANN, S., Europäisches Schuldvertragsrecht – das Europäische Recht der Unternehmensgeschäfte, Berlin, New York, 1999.
  • GRUNDMANN, S., “European sales law. Reform and adoption of international models in German sales law”, ERPL, 2001, n.º 2-3, pp. 239 y ss.
  • GRUNDMANN, S., “Verbraucherrecht, Unternehmensrecht, Privatrecht – warum sind sich UN-Kaufrecht und EU-Kaufrechts-Richtlinie so ähnlich?”, AcP, 2002, n.º 202, pp. 40 y ss.
  • GRUNDMANN, S.,/BIANCA, C. (Coord.), EU-Kaufrechtsrichtlinie, Köln, V. Otto Schmidt, 2002.
  • GRUNDMANN, S./MEDICUS, D./ROLLAND, R. (Coord.), Europäisches Kaufgewährleistungsrecht. Reform und Internationalisierung des deutschen Schuldrechts, Köln, 2000.
  • GSELL, “Kaufrechtsrichtinie und Schuldrechtsmodernisierung”, JZ, 2001, pp. 65 y ss.; “Nutzungsentschädigung bei kaufrechtlicher Nacherfüllung?”, NJW, 2003, pp. 1969 y ss.
  • HAAR, B., “Verbraucherschutz durch Informationsregeln beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf: zur Struktur der Garantie gem. § 477 Abs. 1 BGB”, VuR, 2004, n.º 5, pp. 161 y ss.
  • HAAS, “Entwurf eines Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetzes: Kauf- und Werkvertragsrecht”, BB, 2001, pp. 1313 y ss.
  • HAMMEN, H., “Zum Verhältnis der Garantie zu den Mängelrechten aus § 437 BGB”, NJW, 2003, n.º 36, pp. 2588 y ss.
  • HÄNLEIN, A., “Die Richtlinie zu bestimmten Aspekten des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs und der Garantien für Verbrauchsgüter”, DB, 1999, pp. 1641 y ss.
  • HAZAN, M., “Attuata la direttiva 99/44/CE: di rafforza la tutela del consumatore”, I contratti, 2002, pp. 391 y ss.
  • HERMANNS, “Gewährleistungsvorschriften und Gebrauchsgüterrichtlinie”, ZfS, 2001, pp. 437 y ss.
  • HERTEL, “Gekauft wie besichtigt“ – Beschaffenheitsvereinbarung und Ausschluss der Mängelrechte beim Altbauverkauf nach neuem Schuldrecht”, ZNotP, 2002, pp. 126 y ss.
  • HÖFFE, S., Die Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie 1999/44/EG und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Schadenersatz beim Kauf, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2002,
  • HOFFMANN, J., “Verbrauchsgüterkaufrechtsrichtlinie und Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz”, ZRP, 2001, pp. 347 y ss.
  • HONDIUS, E., “Kaufen ohne Risiko: Der europäische Richtlinienentwurf zum Verbraucherkauf und zur Verbrauchergarantie”, ZEuP, 1997, pp. 130 y ss.
  • HONDIUS, E./JELOSCHEK, C., “Die Kaufrichlinie und das Niederländische recht: für den Westen kaum etwas neues”, en S.
  • GRUNDMANN/D. MEDICUS/W. ROLLAND (Coord), Europäisches Kaufgewährleistungsrecht, Köln, Heymanns Verlag, 2000, pp. 208 y ss.
  • HONSELL, “Die EU-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und ihre Umsetzung ins BGB”, JZ, 2001, pp. 278 y ss.
  • HUBER, “Kaufrecht – made in Europe! Die EG-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und ihre Folgen für das deutsche Gewährleistungsrecht”, Festschrift Henrich, 2000, pp. 297 y ss.
  • HÜBNER, U., “Der Verbrauchersgüterkauf: ein weiterer Schritt in Richtung Europäisierung des Privatrechts”, EuZW, 1999, pp. 481.
  • HUCKE, “Die Auswirkungen der Europäischen VerbrauchsgüterkaufRichtlinie auf das deutsche Schuldrecht”, IstR, 2000, pp. 277 y ss.
  • IURILLI, C., “Riequilibrio delle posizioni contrattuali e limiti all’esercizio dello ‘ius variandi’ nei contratti del consumatore” Giur. it., 2001, pp.652 y ss.
  • IURILLI, C., Autonomia contrattuale e garanzie nella vendita di beni de consumo, Milano, Giuffrè, 2004.
  • JACK, A., “Die Umsetzung der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie in englisches Recht”, Internationales Handelsrech, 2004, n.º 2, pp. 54 y ss.
  • JANSSEN, “Kollision des einheitlichen UN-Kaufrechts mit dem Verbraucherschutzrecht am Beispiel der Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und –garantien”, VuR, 1999, pp. 324 y ss.
  • JORDEN, S., Verbrauchergarantien: die EG-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und Verbrauchsgütergarantien und ihre Umsetzung in das deutsche Zivilrecht, München, VVF, 2001.
  • JORDEN/LEHMANN, “Verbrauchsgüterkauf und Schuldrechtsmodernisierung”, JZ, 2001, pp. 952 y ss.
  • JUD, B., “Der Richtlinienentwurf der EU über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und das österreischische Recht”, ÖJZ, 1997, pp. 441 y ss.
  • JUD, B., “Die Rangordnung der Gewährleistungsbehelfe. Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie, österreichisches, deutsches und UNKaufrecht im Vergleich”, en HELMS (Coord.), Jahrbuch Junger Zivilrechtswissenschaftler 2001, pp. 205 y ss.
  • JUD, B., “Regressrecht des Letztverkäufers: art. 4 der RL 99/44/EG über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und die Reform in Österreich und Deutschland”, ZfRV, 2001, nº 6, pp. 201 y ss.
  • JUNKER, “Vom Bürgerlichen zum kleinbürgerlichen Gesetzbuch – Der Richtlinienvorschlag über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, DZWir, 1997, pp. 271 y ss.
  • KANDUT, G., Das Gewährleistungsrecht beim Kauf, Wien, Verlag Österreich, 1992.
  • KELDER, M. G., “De richtlijn betreffende beppalde aspecten van de verkoop en garanties voor consumptiegoederen”, Bedrijfsjuridische berichten, 1999, n.º 19, pp. 181 y ss.
  • KESSELER, C., “Der Kauf gebrauchter Waren nach dem Diskussionsentwurf eines Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetzes”, ZRP, 2001, pp. 70 y ss.
  • KIRCHER, W., “Zum Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und –garantien”, ZRP, 1997, pp. 290 y ss.
  • KIRCHER, W., Die Voraussetzungen der Sachmängelhaftung beim Warenkauf – eine vergleichende Darstellung des deutschen und des englischen Rechts unter Berücksichtigung des UN Kaufrechts und aktueller Reformbestrebungen, 1998.
  • KOCH, “Auswirkungen der Schuldrechtsreform auf die Gestaltung Allgemeiner Geschäftsbedingungen”, WM, 2002, pp. 2217 y ss.
  • KREJCI, H., Reform des Gewährleistungsrechts, Wien, Verlag Österreich, 1994.
  • LEHMANN, M., “Informationsverantwortung und Gewährleistung für Werbeangaben beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, JZ, 2000, pp. 280 y ss.
  • LEHMANN/DÜRRSCHMIDT, “Haftung für irreführende Werbung über Garantien – Zum Vorschlag einer Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und -garantien vom 18. 6. 1996”, GRUR, 1997, pp. 549 y ss.
  • LEHR, W./WENDEL, H., “Die EU-Richtlinie über Verbrauchsgüterkauf und -garantien – Auswirkungen auf Handel und Produzenten”, EWS, 1999, pp. 321 y ss.
  • LUMINOSO, A., “Appunti per l’attuazione della direttiva 1999/44/CE e per la revisione della garanzia per vizi nella vendita”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 83 y ss.
  • LUMINOSO, A., “Proposta di modificazione del codice civile per l´attuazione della direttiva 1999/44/CE”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 133 y ss.
  • LUMINOSO, A., “Riparazione o sostituzione dell cosa e garanzia por vizi de nella vendita. Dal codice civile alla direttiva 1999/44”, Riv. dir. civ., 2001, I, pp. 837 y ss.
  • LUMINOSO, A., “Il sistema dei rimedi: la riparazione e la sostituzione del bene difettoso e il diritto di regresso del venditore”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 45 y ss.
  • MACARIO, F., “Brevi considerazioni sull’attuazione della direttiva in tema di garanzie nella vendita di beni di consumo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 143 y ss.
  • MAGNUS, “Der Regreßanspruch des Letztverkäufers nach der Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, en BASEDOW/MEIER/
  • MAINGUY, D., “Propos dissidents sur la transposition pour la directie du 25 mai 1999 sur certains aspects de la vente et des garanties des bienes de consommation”, JCP, 2002, n.º 48, pp. 2109 y ss.
  • MANNINO, “L´attuazione della direttiva 1999/44/CE in Francia”, Europa e dir. priv., 2003.
  • MAROTZKE, “Kein Gewährleistungsausschluss bei der Veräußerung beweglicher Massegegenstände an Verbraucher?”, ZInsO, 2002, pp. 501 y ss.
  • MARTÍN SANTISTEBAN, S., “Nuova disciplina della vendita dei beni di consumo nel diritto spagnolo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2003, pp. 868 y ss.
  • MARTIN, V., Gesetzliche mängelhaftung gemäß der Europäischen Richtlinie über den Verbrauchrsgïterkauf und Bürgerliches Gewährleistungsrecht, Diss. Unv. Bonn, 2001.
  • MASTRORILLI, A., La garanzia per vizi nella vendita. Disciplina codicistica e nuova normativa europea, Milano, Giuffrè, 2004.
  • MATTHES, “Der Herstellerregress nach § 479 BGB in Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen. Ausgewählte Probleme”, NJW, 2002, pp. 2505 y ss.
  • MATTHIESSEN/LINDNER, “EG-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf – Anlass für eine Reform des deutschen Schuldrechts”, NJ, 1999, pp. 617 y ss.
  • MEDICUS, D., “Ein neues Kaufrecht für Verbraucher?”, ZIP, 1996, pp. 1925 y ss.
  • MICKLITZ, H. W., “Ein einheitliches Kaufrecht für Verbraucher in der EG?”, EuZW, 1997, pp. 229 y ss.
  • MICKLITZ, H. W., “Die Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie”, EuZW, 1999, pp. 485 y ss.
  • MITTMANN, A., Einheitliches UN-Kaufrecht und europäische Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie. Konkurrenz- und Auslegungsprobleme, Frankfurt am Main, Lang, 2004.
  • MORGENROTH, S. J., “Die Umsetzung der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie 1999/44/EG in Spanien”, RIW, 2003, pp. 837 y ss.
  • MORGENROTH, S. J., Umsetzung der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie in Spanien und Deutschland. Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 25. Mai 1999 zu bestimmten Aspekten des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs und der Garantien für Verbrauchsgüter in Spanien und Deutschland, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Wien, Lang, 2003.
  • MOTA PINTO, P., “Conformidade e garantias na venda e bens de consumo. A Directiva 1999/44/CE e o direito portugués”, Estudos de Direito do Consumidor, Coimbra, 2000, pp. 199 y ss.
  • MOTA PINTO, P., Cumprimento defeituoso do contrato de compra e venda. Anteprojecto de Diploma de Transposiçao da Directiva 1999/44/CE para o Direito Postuguês, Lisboa, 2002.
  • NAU, E., Das Gewährleistungsrecht in BGB, UN-Kaufrecht und den Reformvorschlägen der Schuldrechtskommission: ein Vergleich unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Richtlinie (1999/44/EG) über den Verbrauchersgüterkauf, Franckfurt am Main, Lang, 2003.
  • NIEBLING, “Fahrzeugkauf in der Europäischen Union – Garantie und Mängelansprüche nach der Schuldrechtsreform”, MDR, 2002, pp. 853 y ss.
  • NIETZER/STEIN, “Richtlinie zum Verbrauchsgüterkauf – Auswirkungen in Deutschland und Frankreich”, ZvglRW, 2000, n.º 99, pp. 41 y ss.
  • PADOVINI, F., “Sul carattere imperativo delle disposizionik nazionali di attuazione della direttiva 1999/44/CE (dedicata a taluni aspetti della vendita e delle garanzie dei beni de consumo)”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 213 y ss.
  • PAISANT, G./LEVENEUR, L., “Quelle transposition pour la directive du 25 mai 1999 sur les garanties dans la vente de biens de consommation?”, JCP, 2002, n.º 21, pp. 924 y ss.,
  • PARLEDOSI, P., “La direttiva sulle garanzie nella vendita: ovvero, di buone intenzioni e risultati opachi”, Riv. crit. dir. priv., 2001, pp. 437 y ss.
  • PATTI, S., “Sul superamento della distinzione tra vizi e aliud pro alio nella Direttiva 1999/44/CE”, Riv. dir. civ., 2002, II, pp. 623 y ss.
  • PATTI, S., (Coord.), Commentario sulla vendita dei beni di consumo, Milano, Giuffré, 2004.
  • PEIFER, “Die Haftung des Verkäufers für Werbeangaben”, JR, 2001, pp. 265 y ss.
  • PETERL, R., Deutsches und französisches Kaufrecht und die EUVerbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie, Hamburg, Kovac, 2004.
  • PFEIFFER, “Teil 2: Sachmangelbegriff – Ausklammerung der Zuviellieferung”, ZGS, 2002, pp. 138 y ss.
  • PFEIFFER, “Teil 3: Unzumutbarkeit beider Arten der Nacherfüllung”, ZGS, 2002, pp. 217 y ss.
  • PFEIFFER, “Unkorrektheiten bei der Umsetzung der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie in das deutsche Recht, Teil 1: Sachmangelbegriff – Hierarchie statt Kumulation der Mangelkriterien”, ZGS, 2002, pp. 94 y ss .
  • PICHONNAZ, P., “Überlegungen zur «autonomen» Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf in der Schweiz”, en M.
  • SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 287 y ss.
  • PICOD, F., “La Directive 1999/44/CE. Genése et principes”, en J. LETE ACHIRICA (Ed.), Garantías en la venta de bienes de consumo. Les garanties dans la vente de biens de consommation, Santiago de Compostela, Ed. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2004, pp. 23 y ss.
  • PIGNARRE, G., “Les droits (légaux) de l´acheteur”, en J. LETE ACHIRICA (Ed.), Garantías en la venta de bienes de consumo. Les garanties dans la vente de biens de consommation, Santiago de Compostela, Ed. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2004, pp. 61 y ss.
  • PINNA, A., “Il termini nella disciplina delle garanzie e la direttiva 1999/44/CE sulle vendite dei beni di consumo”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2000, pp. 516 y ss.
  • PINNA, A., “La transposition en droit francais”, ERPL, 2001, n.º 2-3, pp. 223 y ss.
  • PRIEß, M., Der Begriff des Sachsmangels im deutschen und im englischen Kaufrecht. Reformbedarf aufgrund der Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie 1999/44/EG, Frankfurt am Mani-Berlin, Lang, 2001.
  • RAINER, J. M., “Zu Sprache und Stil der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie. Ein Überblick anhand der deutschen, englischen, französischen, italienischen und spanischen Fassung”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 147 y ss.
  • REICH, N., “Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG in das deutsche Recht”, NJW, 1999, pp. 2397 y ss.
  • REINKING, “Auswirkungen des Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetzes auf den Neu- und Gebrauchtwagenkauf ”, DAR, 2001, pp. 8 y ss.
  • REINKING, “Die Haftung des Autoverkäufers für Sach- und Rechtsmängel nach neuem Recht”, DAR, 2002, pp. 15 y ss.
  • REINKING, “Gebrauchtwagenkauf von Unternehmen an Verbraucher im neuen Schuldrecht”, ZGS, 2003, pp. 105 y ss.
  • RENDA, A., “Prime annotazioni in merito alla imminente direttiva sulle garanzie contrattuali: una occasione mancata?”, Diritto dei consumi, 1997, pp. 565 y ss.
  • REPGEN, T., Kein Abschied von der Privatautonomie. Die Funktion zwingenden Rechts in der Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie, München, Schöningh, 2001.
  • RIEGER, G., “Die Richtlinie zu bestimmten Aspekten des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs und der Garantien für Verbrauchsgüter vor dem Hintergrund des geltenden Rechts”, VuR, 1999, pp. 287 y ss.
  • RING, G/OLSEN-RING, L., Einführung in das skandinavishce Recht, München, 1999.
  • RINGSTMEIER/HOMANN, “Die Auswirkungen der Schuldrechtsreform auf die Insolvenzverwaltung”, ZIP, 2002, pp. 505 y ss.
  • RIVA, I., “Garanzia per vizi e contratto preliminare di vendita”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 2001, pp. 1019 y ss.
  • ROMANA LODOLINI, P., “La Direttiva 1999/44/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio su taluni aspetti della vendita e delle garanzie dei beni di consumo: prime osservazioni”, in Europa e dir. priv., 1999, pp. 1275 y ss.
  • RUMMEL, Kommentar zum ABGB, Band 1, Wien, Manzsche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1990.
  • RUSCELLO, F., “Le garanzie post-vendita nella Direttiva 1999/44/CE del 25 maggio 1999”, Studium Iuris, 2001, pp. 832 y ss.
  • SACHSEN GESSAPHE, K. A., “Der Rückgriff des Letztverkäufers, neues europäisches und deutsches Kaufrecht”, RIW, 2001, pp. 721 y ss.
  • SACHSEN GESSAPHE, K. A., “Neues Kaufrecht und Lieferbedingungen im unternehmerischen Geschäftsverkehr”, en Festschrift für H.J. Sonnenberger, 2004, pp. 99 y ss.
  • SAENGER, I., “Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie über Verbraucherkäufe in Deutschland”, en M.
  • SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 191 y ss.
  • SCHÄFER, P.,/PFEIFFER, K., “Die EG-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, ZIP, 1999, pp. 1829 y ss.
  • SCHELLHAMMER, “Das neue Kaufrecht – Rechtsmängelhaftung, Rechtskauf und Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, MDR, 2002, pp. 485 y ss.
  • SCHERMAIER, M., (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG, München, Sellier, 2003.
  • SCHERMAIER, M., “Rechtsangleichung und Rechtswissenschaft im kaufrechtlichen Sächmängelrecht”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 3 y ss
  • SCHLECHTRIEM, P., “Verbraucherkaufverträge – ein neuer Richtlinienentwurf ”, JZ, 1997, pp. 441 y ss.
  • SCHLECHTRIEM, P., “Die Anpassung des deutschen Rechts an die Klausel-Richtlinie und den Richtlinienvorschlag zum Verbraucherkaufrecht”, ZSR, 1999, pp. 335 y ss.
  • SCHLECHTRIEM, P., “Das geplante Gewährleistungsrecht im Licht der europäischen Richtlinie zum Gebrauchsgüterkauf ”, en ERNST/ZIMMERMANN (Coord.), Zivilrechtswissenschaft und Schuldrechtsreform, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2001, pp. 205 y ss.
  • SCHLESINGER, P., “La garanzie nella vendita di beni de consumo”, Corr. giur., 2002, pp. 562 y ss.
  • SCHMIDT, “Änderungen des Kaufrechts durch die Schuldrechtsreform und deren Bedeutung für die Praxis der Insolvenzverwaltung”, ZInsO, 2002, pp. 103 y ss.
  • SCHMIDT-KESSEL, M., “Der Rückgriff des Letztverkäufers”, ÖJZ, 2000, n.º 55, pp. 668 y ss.
  • SCHMIDT-RÄNTSCH, J., “Zum Stand der Kaufrechtsrichtlinie”, ZIP, 1998, pp. 849 y ss.
  • SCHMIDT-RÄNTSCH, J., “Gedanken zur Umsetzung der kommenden Kaufrechtsrichtlinie”, ZEuP, 1999, pp. 294 y ss.
  • SCHNYDER, A./STRAUB, R. M.,“Das EG-Grünbuch über Verbrauchsgütergarantien und Kundendienst. Erster Schritt zu einem einheitlichen EG-Kaufrecht?”, ZEuP, 1996, pp. 8 y ss.
  • SCHREIER, B., Vergleich der Umsetzung ausgewählter Verbraucherschutzrichtlinien in Deutschland und Norwegen. Vergleich der Umsetzung der AGB-Richtlinie 93/13/EWG, der Haustürwiderrufs-Richtlinie 85/577/EWG und der Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie 99/44/EG, Hamburg, Verl. Kovac, J, 2004.
  • SCHUBEL, “Mysterium Lieferkette”, ZIP, 2002, pp. 2061 y ss.
  • SCHUBEL, “Schuldrechtsmodernisierung 2001/2002 – Das neue Kaufrecht”, JuS, 2002, pp. 313 y ss.
  • SCHUHMACHER/HAYBÄCK, “Die Anpassung des österreichischen Rechts an die EU-Vertragsklauselrichtlinie sowie an die Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie”, ZSR, 1999, pp. 361 y ss.
  • SCHULTE-NÖLKE, “Anforderungen an haftungseinschränkende Beschaffenheitsvereinbarungen beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, ZGS, 2003, pp. 184 y ss.
  • SCHULZE STEINEN, P., “Umsetzung der EU-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf in Finnland”, Internationales Handelsrecht, 2003, n.º 5, pp. 212 y ss.
  • SCHURR, F. A., “Die neue Richtlinie 99/44/EG über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und ihre Umsetzungschancen und Gefahren für das deutsche Kaufrecht”, ZfRV, 1999, pp. 222 y ss.
  • SCHWARTZE, A., “Die zukünftige Sachmängelgewährleistung in Europa
  • SCHWARTZE, A., Die Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie vor ihrer Umsetzung”, ZEuP, 2000, pp. 544 y ss.
  • SCHWARTZE, A., “Perspektiven für eine zukünftige Sachmängelgewährleistung in Europa
  • SCHWARTZE, A., Rechtsvergleichende und funktionale Betrachtung der Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie vor ihrer Umsetzung in den Mitgliedstaaten”, ZEuP, 2000, n.º 3, pp. 323 y ss.
  • SCHWARTZE, A., Europäische Sachmängelgewährleistung beim Warenkauf. Optionale Rechtsangleichung auf der Grundlage eines funktionalen Rechsvergleichs, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
  • SCHWARTZE, A., “Sachprobleme für die Umsetzumg aus Genese, Inhalt und Dogmatik der Richtlinie über Verbracuherkäufe”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 127 y ss.
  • SINDE MONTEIRO, “Proposta de Directiva do Parlamento Europeu e do conselho relativa à venda e às garantias dos bens de consumo”, revista Jurídica da Universidade Moderna, 1998, pp. 461 y ss.
  • SIRKS, A. J. B., “Die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG in den Niederlanden”, en M.
  • SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/EG, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 275 y ss.
  • SMITS, J. M., “Naar een nieuw Europees consumentenkooprecht”, Nederlands Juristenblad, 2000, n.º 37, pp. 1827 y ss.
  • SOBICH, P., “Neues Kaufrecht im Vereinigten Königsreich: die Umsetzung der Verbrauchersgüter Kaufrichtlinie (99/44/EWG) durch die Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulacions 2002”, RIW, 2003, nº 10, pp. 740 y ss.
  • STAUDENMAYER, D., “Die EG-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf”, NJW, 1999, pp. 2393 y ss.
  • STAUDER, B., “Die Gewährleistung bei Konsumentenkaufverträgen nach OR im Lichte des EU-Rechts”, ERPL, 2001, n.º 2-3, pp. 369 y ss.
  • STEINER, P., “Der Entwurf der Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über Verbrauchersgüterkauf und –garantien und das geltenden österreichische Recht”, en SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Reform des Gewährleistungsrechts und europäische Rechtsangleichung, 1998, pp. 249 y ss.
  • STIJNS, S., “Les garanties commerciales et l´action récursoire du vendeur final dans la directive sur la vente au consommateir”, en J. LETE ACHIRICA (Ed.), Garantías en la venta de bienes de consumo. Les garanties dans la vente de biens de consommation, Santiago de Compostela, Ed. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 2004, pp. 101 y ss.
  • TENREIRO, M., “Garanties et services après-vente: brève analyse du Livre Vert présenté par la Commission européenne”, REDC, 1994, pp. 1 y ss.
  • TENREIRO, M., “La proposition de directive sur la vente et les garanties des biens de consommation”, REDC, 1996, pp. 187 y ss.
  • THODE, “EG-Richtlinie zu bestimmten Aspekten des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs und der Garantien für Gebrauchsgüter – Ihre Auswirkungen auf das deutsche Werkvertragsrecht”, ZfBR, 2000, pp. 363 y ss.
  • TONNER, K., “Verbrauchsgüter-Richtlinie und Europäisierung des Zivilrechts”, BB, 1999, pp. 1769 y ss.
  • TONNER, K., “Die verkaufsrechtlichen Vorschriften im Diskussionsentwurf eines Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetztes”, VuR, 2001, pp. 87 y ss.
  • TORIELLO, F., “La proposta di direttiva sulle garanzie nelle vendite di beni di consumo: brevi note”, Contr. Impr./Eur., 1997, pp. 815 y ss.
  • TOURNAFOND, O., “Remarques critiques sur la directive européenne du 25 mai 1999 relative à certains aspects de la vente et des garanties des bienes de consommation”, Dalloz, 2000, n.º 10, pp. 159 y ss.
  • TOURNAFOND, O., “De la transposition de la directive du 25 mai 1999 à la réforme du code civil”, Dalloz, 2002, n.º 38, pp. 2883 y ss
  • TRÖGER, T., “Zum Systemdenken im europäischen Schuldvertragsrecht – Probleme der Rechtsangleichung durch Richtlinien am Beispiel der Verbrauchsgüterkauf-Richtlinie”, ZEuP, 2003, n.º 3, pp. 245 y ss.
  • TRÖGER, T., “Voraussetzungen der Verkäuferregresses im BGB”, AcP, 2004, n.º 1, pp. 115 y ss.
  • VINEY, G., “Quel domaine assigner à la loi de transposition de la directive européenne sur la vente?”, JCP, 2002, I, pp. 158 y ss.
  • VINEY, G., “Retour sur la transposition de la directiva du 25 mai 1999”, Dalloz, 2002, pp. 3162 y ss.
  • VON WESTPHALEN, “Die Neuregelungen des Entwurfs eines Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetzes für das Kauf- und Werkvertragsrecht”, DB, 2001, pp. 799 y ss.
  • VORSMANN, M., Gesetzliche Mängelhaftung gemäß der Europäischen Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und Bürgerliches Gewährleistungsrecht, Dissertation, Bonn, 2001.
  • WEHRT, K., “Zwingende Vorschriften der Gewährleistung für Sachmängel?”, en M. SCHERMAIER (Coord.), Verbraucherkauf in Europa. Altes Gewährleistungsrecht und die Umsetzung der Richtlinie 1999/44/CE, München, Sellier, 2003, pp. 111 y ss.
  • WEIN, TH., Eine ökonomische Analyse der neuen Verbrauchsgüterkaufrichtlinie zum Gewährleistungsrecht, Universität Lüneburg, Fachbereich Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, Arbeitsberitch Nr. 228.
  • WEISNER, “Die EG-Kaufrechtsgewährleistungsrichtlinie”, JuS, 2001, pp. 759 y ss.
  • WELSER, R., “Der Vorschlag einer EU-Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf ”, Festschrift Hempe, 1997, pp. 323 y ss.
  • WELSER, R., “Die Verbrauchergüterkauf-Richtlinie und ihre Umsetzung in Österreich und Deutschland”, en P. SCHLECHTRIEM, Wandlungen des Schuldrechts, Baden Baden, 2002, pp. 83 y ss.
  • WELSER, R., “Reform des österreichischen Leistungsstörungsrechts”, en C. FISCHER-CZERMAK (Coord.), Das ABGB auf dem Weg in das 3. Jahrtausend, Wien, Manz, 2003, pp. 63 y ss.
  • WELSER, R./JUD, B., Reform der Gewährleistungsrechts, Verhandlungen des 14. Österreichischen Juristentages, Band II/1, 2000.
  • WELSER, R./JUD, B., Die neue Gewährleistung, 2001.
  • WERTENBRUCH, “Gefahrtragung beim Versendungskauf nach neuem Schuldrecht”, JuS, 2003, pp. 625 y ss.
  • WESTERMANN, H.-P., “Das neue Kaufrecht einschließlich des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs”, JZ, 2001, pp. 530 y ss.
  • WESTERMANN, H.-P., “Kaufrecht im Wandel”, in SCHULZE/SCHULTE-NÖLKE, Die Schuldrechtsreform vor dem Hintergrund des Gemeinschaftsrechts, 2001, pp. 109 y ss.
  • WESTERMANN, H.-P., “Sondertagung Schuldrechtsmodernisierung – Das neue Kaufrecht einschließlich des Verbrauchsgüterkaufs”, JZ, 2001, pp. 530 y ss.
  • WESTERMANN, H.-P.,“Das neue Kaufrecht”, NJW, 2002, pp. 241 y ss.
  • WHITTAKER, S., “I problemi posti dal recepimento della direttiva 1999/44/CE del 25 maggio 1999, concernente taluni aspetti della vendita di beni di consumo e delle garanzie ad essi relative. Prospettive del diritto inglese”, en AAVV, L´attuazione della Direttiva 99/44/CE in Italia e in Europa, Milano, Cedam, 2002, pp. 293 y ss.
  • WOLF, “Reform des Kaufrechts durch EG-Richtlinie – ein Vorteil für die Wirtschaft? – Die möglichen Auswirkungen einer Richtlinie über den Verbrauchsgüterkauf und -garantien auf das deutsche Kaufrecht und die Wirtschaft”, RIW, 1997, pp. 899 y ss.
  • WRASE/MÜLLER-HELLE, “Aliud-Lieferung beim Verbrauchsgüterkauf – ein nur scheinbar gelöstes Problem”, NJW, 2002, pp. 2537 y ss.
  • ZACCARIA, A., “Reflessioni circa l’attuazione della Direttiva n. 1999/44/CE su taluni aspetti della vendita e delle garanzie dei beni di consumo”, Studium Iuris, 2000, pp. 230 y ss.
  • ZACCARIA, A./DE CRISTOFARO, G., La vendita dei beni di consumo, Milano, Cedam, 2002.
  • ZERRES, M., “Recht auf Nacherfüllung im deutschen und englischen Kaufrecht”, RIW, 2003, pp. 746 y ss.
  • ZIEGLER/RIEDER, “Vertragsgestaltung und Vertragsanpassung nach dem Schuldrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz”, ZIP, 2001, pp. 1789 y ss.
  • ZIMMER, D., /ECKHOLD, “Das neue Mängelgewährleistungsrecht beim Kauf ”, Jura, 2002, pp. 145 y ss.
  • Taxation of savings income

    Taxation of savings income

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Taxation of savings income

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    Taxation of savings income

    Document or Iniciative

    Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.

    Summary

    The aim of the Directive is to enable savings income, in the form of interest payments made in one Member State to “beneficial owners” * who are individual residents for tax purposes in another Member State, to be made subject to effective taxation in accordance with the laws of the latter Member State. The automatic exchange of information between Member States concerning interest payments * is the means chosen to achieve effective taxation of these “interest payments” in the Member State where the beneficial owner is resident for tax purposes. Member States must therefore take the necessary measures to ensure that the tasks necessary for the implementation of this Directive – cooperation and exchange of banking information – are carried out by paying agents established within their territory, irrespective of the place of establishment of the debtor of the debt claim producing the interest.

    Income concerned

    The scope of this Directive is limited to taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments on debt claims, to the exclusion of the issues relating to the taxation of pension and insurance benefits. At territorial level, the Directive applies to interest paid by a “paying agent” * established within the territory to which the Treaty applies.

    The general system: exchange of information

    • Information reporting by the paying agent

    Where the beneficial owner is resident in a Member State other than that in which the paying agent is established, the Directive stipulates that the latter must report to the competent authority of its Member State of establishment a minimum amount of information, such as the identity and residence of the beneficial owner, the name and address of the paying agent, the account number of the beneficial owner or, where there is none, identification of the debt claim giving rise to the interest, and information concerning the interest payment.

    Moreover, the minimum amount of information concerning interest payment to be reported by the paying agent must distinguish between the specific categories of interest listed in the Directive. However, Member States may restrict the minimum amount of information to the total amount of interest or income and to the total amount of the proceeds from sale, redemption or refund.

    • Automatic exchange of information

    Under the Directive, the competent authority of the Member State of the paying agent must communicate – at least once a year, within six months following the end of the tax year of the Member State of the paying agent – the information referred to above to the competent authority of the Member State of residence of the beneficial owner.

    Context

    As part of the “tax package” aimed at combating harmful tax competition, the European Union (EU) decided to draw up a legislative instrument to overcome existing distortions in the effective taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.

    This Directive builds on the consensus reached at the Feira European Council of 19 and 20 June 2000. During this Council, it was decided to set up of an automatic exchange of information system between all Member States. Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria benefited from a transitional period for the implementation of this measure during which, instead of providing information to the other Member States, they had to apply a withholding tax to the savings income covered by this Directive.

    Key terms used in the act
    • Beneficial owner: any individual who receives an interest payment or any individual for whom an interest payment is secured, unless he provides evidence that it was not received or secured for his own benefit.
    • Paying agent: any economic operator who pays interest to or secures the payment of interest for the immediate benefit of the beneficial owner, whether the operator is the debtor of the debt claim which produces the interest or the operator charged by the debtor or the beneficial owner with paying interest or securing the payment of interest. In specific cases set out in Article 4 of the Directive, any entity established in a Member State to which interest is paid or for which interest is secured for the benefit of the beneficial owner is also considered a paying agent upon such payment or securing of such payment.
    • Interest payment: interest paid or credited to an account, relating to debt claims of every kind, whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or not carrying a right to participate in the debtor’s profits, and, in particular, income from government securities and income from bonds or debentures, including premiums and prizes attaching to such securities, bonds or debentures; penalty charges for late payments are not regarded as interest payments; interest accrued or capitalised at the sale, refund or redemption of the debt claims referred to above; income deriving from interest payments either directly or through certain entities set out limitatively, distributed by undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) or certain undertakings for collective investment; income realised upon the sale, refund or redemption of shares or units in UCITS, if they invest directly or indirectly, via other undertakings for collective investment or entities, more than 40 % of their assets in debt claims.

    References

    Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
    Directive 2003/48/EC

    16.7.2003

    Date of application: 1.7.2005

    OJ L 157 of 26.6.2003

    The successive amendments and corrections to Directive 2003/48/EC have been integrated into the original text. This consolidated versionis for reference only.

    RELATED ACTS

    Proposal for a Council Directive of 13 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments [COM(2008) 727 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
    This Proposal for a Directive aims at offsetting the shortcomings in the current directive, with a view to taxing savings income more effectively and eliminating the undesirable distortions of competition.

    In this perspective, the main amendments proposed concern the following points:

    • the definition of the beneficial owner: a proposal for a ‘look-through’ approach to cover interest payments made to legal persons or arrangements held by individuals (the current directive only covers interest payments made for the immediate benefit of individuals);
    • the identification of beneficial owners: the recording of the date and place of birth of the beneficial owner in all cases and in addition the tax identification number of the beneficial owner when this number appears on documents presented for identification purposes is proposed;
    • the definition of the notion of paying agent: clarification of the notion of ‘paying agent on receipt’ and the introduction of a ‘positive’ definition of intermediary structures established in Member States and bound to act as ‘paying agents on reception’;
    • the definition of interest payment, in order to cover financial instruments that are equivalent to those which are explicitly covered: structured products that are equivalent in substance to debt commodities and some insurance products that are directly comparable to undertakings for collective investment since their performance is linked to debt claims or equivalent income;
    • the extension of the scope to all undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS);
    • the communication of information by paying agents;
    • the introduction of a comitology procedure so as to quickly decide implementation measures related to the Directive.

     

    Unfair terms

    Unfair terms

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Unfair terms

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    Unfair terms

    Document or Iniciative

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [See amending act(s)].

    Summary

    This Directive does not apply to contractual terms reflecting:

    • mandatory provisions or regulations;
    • provisions arising from international agreements to which the Member States or the Community are signatories.

    A non-negotiated term is unfair when it establishes a significant imbalance, to the consumer’s detriment, between the rights and obligations of the contracting parties.

    A list of terms which may be deemed unfair is annexed to the Directive.

    Assessing the unfair nature of a contractual term takes into account:

    • the nature of the goods or services covered by the contract;
    • the circumstances surrounding the drawing up of the contract;
    • the other terms in the contract or in another contract to which it relates.

    Neither the definition of the main aim of the contract nor the relationship between the price and the service or goods to be provided may be taken into account in assessing the unfair nature of clearly worded contractual terms.

    Where there is doubt as to the meaning of a term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer will prevail.

    Consumers are not bound by unfair terms in a contract signed with a professional.

    The Member States are to implement the appropriate measures to end the use of unfair terms.

    The Commission is to report to the European Parliament and the Council by 31 December 1999 on the application of this Directive.

    REFERENCES

    Act Entry into force Deadline for implementation in the Member States Official Journal

    Directive 93/13/EEC

    11.5.1993

    31.12.1994

    OJ L 95, 21.4.1993

    Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for implementation in the Member States Official Journal

    Directive 2002/995/EC

    9.12.2002

    1.1.2003

    OJ L 353, 30.12.2002

    Related Acts

    Report from the Commission on the implementation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [COM (2000) 248 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
    The purpose of this report is not only to appraise Directive 93/13/EEC, five years after the deadline for its transposition, but also to raise a number of questions with a view to improving the existing situation.
    According to the Commission, its work since 1993 has had a significant effect: infringement procedures, market studies, subsidies granted with a view to eliminating unfair terms in certain economic sectors, the dialogue between consumers and professionals, information campaigns, the conference organised in Brussels in 1999, and the Clab database.
    Drawing on the experience gained in implementing the Directive in the Member States, the report suggests a number of improvements. The suggestions mainly concern the scope of the Directive and its limitations, the notion of unfair terms, the list in the annex to the Directive, the failure to supervise pre-contractual terms and conditions, the principle of transparency and the right to information, penalties, existing national arrangements for eliminating unfair terms, the problems posed by certain economic sectors, and the future of the Clab database.

    Actions for injunctions

    Actions for injunctions

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Actions for injunctions

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    Actions for injunctions

    The European Union (EU) harmonises legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions of Member States relating to actions for injunctions. Recourse to this type of action aims at putting an end to practices which are contrary to certain European directives and which infringe upon consumer protection. The aim of this Directive is to stop commercial operators’ activities in a Member State that are harmful to the collective interests of consumers in another Member State.

    Document or Iniciative

    Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumer interests.

    Summary

    An action for an injunction is a procedure which allows offences which adversely affect consumers’ collective interests to be halted or prohibited.

    An action for injunction may be introduced in a case of violation of national provisions taken when European directives are transposed on misleading advertising, consumer credit, package travel, unfair contractual terms, etc.

    Two categories of qualified entities may bring actions for injunctions to protect consumers’ collective interests: consumers’ associations and public organisations in charge of consumer protection.

    An action for injunction may be brought in the framework of an emergency procedure, it may lead to the publication of the decision or amended declaration to eliminate the effects of the infringement as well as an order against the infringer for payment of a penalty in the event of failure to comply with the decision within the time-limit specified (only in Member States where the legal system so allows).

    In the event of an intra-Community offence which adversely affects the collective interests of consumers in a Member State, any qualified entity in that Member State may institute an action for injunction in the Member State where the offence originated. The aim of this procedure is to neutralise commercial operators who undertake activities that are prejudicial to the collective interests of consumers in another Member State.

    Actions for injunctions introduced by this Directive do not allow adversely affected consumers to obtain compensation for the damage suffered.

    Member States designate the Court or the administrative
    authority competent to rule on actions for injunctions.

    Applicable law is determined according to the rules of private international law currently in force.

    Member States notify the Commission of the entities qualified to bring actions for an injunction in another Member State. The Commission updates the list of entities qualified to bring action in another Member State every six months, and then publishes it in the Official Journal of the European Union.

    Before bringing an action for injunction, Member States may envisage a prior consultation procedure between the infringer and the plaintiff/qualified entity with a view to encouraging a negotiated solution. If the infringement is not terminated within two weeks following receipt of the request for consultation, an action for injunction may be brought.

    Member States may extend the scope of actions for injunctions. They may also extend the possibility of bringing action for injunctions to any other person concerned.

    Every three years the Commission must submit a report on the application of the Directive to the European Parliament and the Council.

    References

    Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
    Directive 98/27/EC 1.7.1998 1.1.2001 OJ L 166 of 11.6.1998

    MODIFICATION OF ANNEXES

    List of European directives

    Directive 1999/44/EC [Official Journal L 171 of 7.7.1999];
    Directive 2000/31/EC [Official Journal L 178 of 17.7.2000];
    Directive 2002/65/EC [Official Journal L 271 of 9.10.2002];
    Directive 2005/29/EC [Official Journal L 149 of 11.6.2005];
    Directive 2006/123/EC [Official Journal L 376 of 27.12.2006].

    Related Acts

    Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 16 November 2006, on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (codified version) [COM(2006) 692 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

    Communication from the Commission concerning Article 4(3) of Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests, concerning the entities qualified to bring an action under Article 2 of this Directive [Official Journal C 63 of 8.3.2008] (pdf ).

    This Communication updates the list of national entities which are recognised by the Member States as qualified to bring actions for injunctions.

    Report of the Commission of 18 November 2008 on the application of Directive 98/27/EC Directive [COM(2008) 756 final – Not published in the Official Journal (pdf )].

    The introduction of the procedure of actions for injunctions in each of the Member States constitutes important progress in putting an end to national offences infringing the protection of consumers’ collective interests. This procedure is less successful in the framework of cross-border offences due to the high cost of the procedure and procedural differences existing between Member States. Implementation of Regulation (EC) n° 2006/2004 on Cooperation for Consumer Protection and the adoption of Regulation n° 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) should however step up the fight against intra-Community offences. Lastly, the Commission considers that it is preferable to continue to examine the application of the Directive before proposing new amendments or its repeal.

    A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds

    A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds

    Document or Iniciative

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 27 February 2008 – ‘A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds’ [COM/2008/ 115 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

    Summary

    Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are state-owned investment vehicles, which manage a diversified portfolio of domestic and international financial assets, and generally accept a high level of risk in search of higher returns. SWFs have grown rapidly in recent years and today, more than thirty countries have created them. This is not a new phenomenon. The creation of the first SWF goes back to 1953. The assets managed by these funds represented, according to estimates, between 2000 and 3000 billion dollars worldwide and this volume should increase further in years to come. Sovereign Funds can be distinguished from other investment funds by the fact that they are state-funded from the foreign exchange reserves of their sponsor countries.

    Up to now, SWFs have played a positive role, in particular by participating in the recapitalisation of a certain number of financial institutions in difficulty. SWFs have thus helped to strengthen the global banking system and confidence in the international financial system as a whole.

    SWFs raise concerns however, in particular with regard to the opacity of the way in which some of them function and the non-commercial use that could be made of them. These SWFs sometimes trigger protectionist reactions. Some are concerned that their investments are aimed at taking strategic control of technology or expertise, or even that they may be used by certain governments as a means of pressure.

    The European approach

    The Commission presented the common European approach to SWFs in a Communication of 27 February 2008. The Communication is the result of an approach aimed at promoting cooperation between SWFs, sponsor countries and recipient countries in order to establish a series of principles that guarantee the transparency, predictability and accountability of investments.

    According to the Commission, the common EU approach to the treatment of SWFs should be based on the following principles:

    • commitment to an open investment environment: in line with the Lisbon Strategy, the EU should reaffirm its commitment to open markets for foreign capital and to an investor-friendly investment climate;
    • support of multilateral work: the EU should actively drive forward work carried out by international organisations and instigate dialogue with SWF owner countries;
    • use of existing instruments;
    • respect of obligations related to the EC Treaty and international commitments;
    • proportionality and transparency: the measures adopted should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the justified goal.

    An international debate

    The question of SWFs is also subject to international debate. Recipient countries have thus stressed their wish that SWFs should base their decisions strictly on economic and not political objectives, and have called for greater transparency on the part of the funds. Sponsor countries, under the aegis of the IMF, have developed a code of conduct for sovereign funds with voluntary application. This code, called the Generally Approved Principles and Practices (GAPP) – or even the ‘Santiago Principles’, was published in October 2008. The Commission has contributed actively to the writing of these principles and considers that they represent a further contribution to similar work undertaken at the OECD. Recipient countries of investments undertaken by SWFs adopted theDeclaration on sovereign wealth funds and recipient country policies in June 2008. This Declaration lays out the principles for policies to be applied to investments by SWFs in the recipient countries. These principles reflect long-term commitments made by the OECD to promote an open global environment for international investment.

    With regard to the European contribution to work carried out on a global scale to establish a common framework for sovereign fund investments, the Commission considers that two elements play a fundamental role in the response to concerns about this question:

    • governance: the degree of possible political interference in the operation of SWFs must be assessed. Principles of good governance include in particular the allocation and clear separation of responsibilities in the management body, the preparation and publication of an investment strategy and the existence of operational autonomy.
    • transparency: this allows investors’ activities to be monitored and ensures that they do not deviate from their stated objectives. The Commission considers that transparency promotes accountability. Practices such as the annual publication of investment positions and asset allocation, the publication of information on the source and size of resources could be envisaged.

    Context

    Despite the debate on good governance of SWFs, they do not operate in a legal vacuum. The Commission recalls that investments made in the EU by SWFs are subject to the same rules and controls as any other form of investment, where the rules of free movement of capital (Article 56 EC) apply. The free movement of capital is however not absolute and may be regulated under Article 57 (2) EC. Member States can also take measures to protect their interests by virtue of the Regulation on Concentrations. They also have national instruments which could be used to control SWF investments.

    The European Council of 13 and 14 March 2008 welcomed the Commission’s proposals and invited it to continue the work being done in this field.

    Single market for capital

    Single market for capital

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Single market for capital

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    Single market for capital

    With the free movement of people, goods and services, the free movement of capital is one of the four fundamental freedoms of the EU. Making this a reality as of 1 July 1990 was the first stage towards economic and monetary union which culminated in the introduction of the euro.

    Applying the principle of the free movement of capital

    • Achieving the free circulation of capital
    • A concerted effort to establish a European financial area
    • The legal aspects of intra-EU investment
    • Impact on capital markets
    • Facility providing financial assistance for balances of payments
    • Removing obstacles to cross-border investments by venture capital funds
    • A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds

    PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ECONOMIC STAKEHOLDERS

    Public and private economic stakeholders and free movement of capital – banks

    • Cross-border payments in euros
    • Information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds

    Public and private economic stakeholders and free movement of capital – businesses

    • Statute for a European Company
    • A European Private Company Statute
    • Fourth Directive: annual accounts of companies with limited liability
    • Seventh Directive: consolidated accounts of companies with limited liability
    • International accounting standards (IAS)
    • Accounting documents of branches of foreign credit and financial institutions
    • Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems
    • Investor compensation schemes

    Public and private economic stakeholders and free movement of capital – consumers

    • Unfair terms
    • Consumer credit agreements
    • Actions for injunctions

    Fiscal aspects of the free movement of capital – economic stakeholders

    • Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States
    • Indirect taxes on raising capital
    • Common taxation of parent companies and their subsidiaries

    Fiscal aspects of the free movement of capital – economic stakeholders – private individuals

    • Taxation of savings income
    • Tackling tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions

    Fight against fraud

    • Money laundering: prevention of the use of the financial system
    • Money laundering: prevention through customs cooperation
    • The prevention of and fight against organised crime in the financial sector
    • Corporate and financial malpractice

    Free movement of capital and relations within and outside the Union

    • Enlargement of the euro area after 1 May 2004
    • Purchasing property in another Member State
    • The euro and the international economy
    • Effects of foreign legislation on the Union’s financial interests
    • Combating the financing of terrorism
    • Agreement on the European Economic Area

    Effects of foreign legislation on the Union's financial interests

    Effects of foreign legislation on the Union’s financial interests

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Effects of foreign legislation on the Union’s financial interests

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    Effects of foreign legislation on the Union’s financial interests

    Document or Iniciative

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom [See amending acts]

    Summary

    The aim of the Regulation is to protect the economic and/or financial interests of natural or legal persons against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation. The laws in question are specified in the Annex to the Regulation. The protection concerns international trade and/or the movement of capital and related commercial activities between the Community and third countries.

    The Regulation applies to:

    • any natural person being a resident in the Community and a national of a Member State;
    • any legal person incorporated within the Community;
    • nationals of the Member States established outside the Community and to shipping companies established outside the Community and controlled by nationals of a Member State, if their vessels are registered in that Member State in accordance with its legislation;
    • natural persons being a resident in the Community, unless that person is in the country of which he is a national;
    • any other natural person within the Community, including its territorial waters and air space and in any aircraft or on any vessel under the jurisdiction or control of a Member State, acting in a professional capacity.

    Any persons whose economic and financial interests are affected by foreign legislation person must inform the Commission accordingly within 30 days from the date on which it obtained such information.

    If a court or tribunal or an administrative authority located outside the Community handed down a decision giving effect, directly or indirectly, to the laws specified in the Annex (such as the USA’s “Iran and Libya Sanctions Act” of 1996), it would not be recognised or enforceable in any manner. The persons referred to in this Regulation shall not comply with any requirement or prohibition based on the laws specified in the Annex. Nonetheless, a person may be authorised to comply with the said requirements or prohibitions. This authorisation is given by the Council on a proposal from the Commission which is assisted by a Committee composed of the representatives of the Member States.

    The Member States determine the sanctions to be imposed in the event of breach of any relevant provisions of this Regulation.

    References

    Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
    Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 29.11.1996 OJ L 309 of 29.11.1996
    Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
    Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 05.06.2003 Official Journal No L 122 of 16.05.2003

    The legal aspects of intra-EU investment

    The legal aspects of intra-EU investment

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about The legal aspects of intra-EU investment

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    The legal aspects of intra-EU investment

    Document or Iniciative

    Commission communication on certain legal aspects concerning intra-EU investment [Official Journal C 220 of 19.07.1997].

    Summary

    The purpose of the communication, which was adopted in 1997, is to inform national authorities and economic operators about the provisions of Community law on the free movement of capital and the right of establishment as it affects this issue, notably Article 73b of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty), which stipulates that all restrictions on the movement of capital and all restrictions on payments between Member States and between Member States and third countries are prohibited. The right of establishment and the free movement of capital are now enshrined in Articles 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Nice in 2001 [PDF ]. The Commission would stress that the communication is without prejudice to the interpretations which the Court of Justice of the European Communities might give in this area. It wishes to help reduce the risks of divergent interpretations and, in so doing, to enable, firstly, Member States to draw up policies that take account of Community law and, secondly, economic operators to be aware of their rights.

    Clarification of the concept of “capital movements”

    The current Article 56 (former Article 73b) prohibits all restrictions on capital movements between Member States save in exceptional circumstances. It covers both discriminatory and non-discriminatory restrictions. Discriminatory restrictions are measures which apply only to nationals of another Member State. Non-discriminatory restrictions apply both to nationals of a Member State and to those of other Member States.

    The Court of Justice of the European Communities has interpreted the meaning of the concept of “capital movements” in a long line of cases *. In order to clarify the provisions of Article 56, the Commission refers to Directive 88/361/EEC, which implements the former Article 67 of the Treaty. In an annex to the Directive, there is a list of operations that may constitute capital movements. Two types of operation are of interest here:

    • operations falling under the heading of “acquisition of domestic securities”: The Commission is of the opinion that the acquisition by nationals of another Member State of shares and bonds issued by a domestic company on pure financial investment grounds, that is, without the aim of exerting any influence on the management of the company, may be considered a capital movement. Moreover, the acquisition of a controlling stake in a company is governed not only by the provisions on the free movement of capital but also by those on the right of establishment. Thus, nationals of other Member States should be free to acquire controlling stakes and to exercise the resulting voting rights under the same conditions as are laid down by the Member State for its own nationals (non-discrimination on grounds of nationality).
    • operations falling under the heading of “direct investments”: The concept of “direct investment” must be understood in the widest sense, that is to say, as “investments of all kinds”.

    Possible discriminatory restrictions

    In exceptional circumstances, Member States may impose restrictions on the free movement of capital. On the basis of the EC Treaty provisions allowing for exceptions, discriminatory restrictions may be accepted:

    • vis-à-vis investors from other Member States if they apply to activities that are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority;
    • on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, provided these exceptions are interpreted restrictively and exclude any interpretation based on economic considerations;
    • to prevent infringements of Member States’ national laws and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and in relation to financial institutions (former Article 73d, current Article 58);
    • within the field of application of the current Article 58(2), which permits the application of restrictions on the freedom of establishment. The restrictions must be compatible with all the provisions of the Treaty. It should be noted that the question of the relationship between these two fundamental freedoms still has to be decided.

    The Court of Justice of the European Communities interprets the exceptions strictly: it rules out any interpretation based on economic considerations. Moreover, Article 58(3) confirms that the exceptions must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital.

    In its communication, the Commission analyses some existing restrictions in the Member States. In its view, discriminatory measures (such as a ban on investors acquiring more than a limited number of voting shares in domestic companies and/or the requirement that investors seek authorisation for the acquisition of shares beyond a certain threshold) may constitute restrictions on direct investment operations and on portfolio investment operations.

    Non-discriminatory measures

    As far as non-discriminatory measures are concerned, the Commission would stress the importance of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (CJEC). The Court has confirmed in a number of judgments, such as that in Bosman (Case C-415/93) or in Gebhard (Case C-55/94), that restrictions liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty must fulfil four conditions:

    • they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner;
    • they must be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest;
    • they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue;
    • they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

    With regard to national authorities’ rights of veto, the Commission would recall that the concept of “investment” within the meaning of Directive 88/361/EEC refers to “investments of all kinds” and must be interpreted in the widest sense. According to the case law of the CJEC, the right of veto may hinder the free movement of capital if the four conditions mentioned above are not met. The Commission considers that the “national interest” is not a sufficiently transparent criterion to justify the introduction of certain measures as it is liable to introduce an element of discrimination towards foreign investors and thus to lead to legal uncertainty.

    After scrutinising the non-discriminatory measures embodied in Member States’ laws, the Commission has found that the authorisation procedures and the right conferred on national authorities to veto certain important corporate decisions (appointment of directors, etc.) may constitute restrictions on the free movement of capital. Nevertheless, authorisations can be justified by imperative requirements in the general interest provided that they are based on a set of objective, stable and published criteria.

    Conclusion

    The Commission concludes that measures restricting intra-EU investment and discriminatory measures are incompatible with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital and the right of establishment unless they are covered by one of the exceptions provided for by the Treaty itself. Non-discriminatory measures, on the other hand, are admissible if they are based on objective, stable and published criteria and if they are justified by imperative requirements in the general interest. At all events, the principle of proportionality must be observed. The Commission wishes to establish a permanent dialogue with the Member States with a view to identifying in advance any difficulties that are likely to impede the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment. It would stress, however, that the transfer of a company from the public to the private sector is an economic policy choice which falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States.

    Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    Judgment of 04.06.2002 in Case C-367/98 Commission v Portugal, paragraph 37;
    Judgment of 04.06.2002 in Case C-483/99 Commission v France, paragraph 36;
    Judgment of 04.06.2002 in Case C-503/99 Commission v Belgium, paragraph 37;
    Judgment of 13.05.2003 in Case C-463/00 Commission v Spain, paragraph 52;
    Judgment of 13.05.2003 in Case C-98/01 Commission v United Kingdom, paragraph 39;
    Judgment of 16.03.1999 in Case C-222/97 Trummer and Mayer, paragraphs 20 and 21.

     

    Purchasing property in another Member State

    Purchasing property in another Member State

    Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Purchasing property in another Member State

    Topics

    These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

    Internal market > Single market for capital

    Purchasing property in another Member State

    Acts

    Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia signed in Athens on 16 April 2003 – Annexes V to XIV [Official Journal L 236 of 23.9.2003]

    Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded – Protocol No 6

    on the acquisition of secondary residences in Malta [Official Journal L 236 of 23.9.2003]

    Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union [Official Journal L 157 of 21.6.2005]

    Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded – protocol No 2 on the Åland islands [Official Journal No C 241 of 29.8.1994]

    Treaty on European Union – Protocol No 1 on the acquisition of property in Denmark [Official Journal No C 191 of 29.7.1992]

    Summary

    Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community enshrines the free movement of capital as a fundamental freedom. It is intended to remove all restrictions on the movement of capital so that European citizens may take full advantage of the single market. However, with the successive accessions of new Member States to the Community, transitional periods of varying lengths governing the possibility of purchasing property and/or cultivated land and forest areas in another Member State were negotiated. This was notably the case for the new Member States that joined the Union on 1 May 2004 (Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Malta) and on 1 January 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania), but is also true of Denmark and Finland.

    Accession criteria and negotiations

    The conditions under which a candidate country is to become a member of the Union are the result of negotiations. Candidate countries must first of all satisfy the Copenhagen criteria by meeting the following political, economic and legal conditions. They must:

    • be a democratic state based on the rule of law: they must be democracies with stable institutions guaranteeing the rule of law and human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities.
    • have a market economy: states wishing to join the Union must have a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
    • be able to take on the obligations of membership: candidate countries must in particular transpose the acquis into their national legislation and be able to put it into practice. The acquis is the body of EU legislation, made up of all the rules, legislation and common policies.

    The Union’s capacity to absorb new Members while maintaining the momentum of European integration is another important consideration with each accession.

    Negotiations clarify the conditions under which each country’s accession is to take place. Transitional periods may be agreed. Negotiations are conducted in Intergovernmental Conferences involving Member States and the candidate country in question. The Council adopts the EU’s common positions on a proposal from the Commission. The candidate States nominate a chief negotiator, backed up by a team of experts, who directs negotiations according to the positions that have been set out. Parliament receives reports about the progress of the negotiations, and gives its assent to the accession that results. For the treaty to come into force, Member States and the candidate country in question must ratify the accession treaty according to their respective internal procedures.

    States that have been Members since 1 May 2004

    The ten Member States that joined the Union on 1 May 2004 all negotiated transitional periods. These are recorded under the heading “free movement of capital” in the Annexes to the Treaty of Accession:

    • Cyprus obtained a transitional period of five years (starting from the date of accession) for legislation in force on 31 December 2000 on the acquisition by aliens of residences for secondary use;
    • Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia negotiated a transitional period of seven years regarding the acquisition of agricultural land and forests. Self-employed farmers from other Member States who have been legally resident and active in farming in Estonia for at least three years are not subject to this restriction. The transitional period may be extended for a maximum of three years if these countries demonstrate the need for a safeguard clause;
    • Hungary enjoys a five-year transitional period regarding the acquisition of secondary residences. Nationals of the Member States and States party to the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement who have been legally resident in Hungary for at least four years continuously are not subject to the restrictions. Hungary also enjoys a seven-year transitional period for the acquisition of agricultural land and forests. Self-employed farmers who have been resident and active in farming in Hungary for at least three years are not subject to the restriction. The transitional period may be extended by a maximum of three years if Hungary demonstrates the need for a safeguard clause;
    • Poland negotiated a transitional period of five years regarding the acquisition of secondary residences. This does not apply to EU nationals and nationals of States party to the EEA Agreement who have been legally resident in Poland for at least four years continuously. There is also a twelve-year transitional period for the acquisition of agricultural land and forests. Self-employed farmers from the EU and EEA who have been legally resident and leasing land in Poland for at least three years or seven years continuously (depending on the region) are not affected by these measures;
    • The Czech Republic negotiated a transitional period of five years for the acquisition of secondary residences by EU and EEA nationals who do not reside in the Czech Republic. Regarding the acquisition of agricultural land and forests, the country applies provisions similar to those in force in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia;
    • Slovenia: as regards the real estate market, Slovenia may resort to the general safeguard clause provided for in Article 37 of the Treaty of Accession for a period of up to seven years after the date of accession. This general economic safeguard clause (normally valid for a period of up to three years only after accession) is intended to mitigate the effects of any serious deterioration in the economic or competitive situation resulting from accession in certain sectors or regions;
    • Malta negotiated a specific protocol which is part of the Treaty of Accession: Protocol 6 on the acquisition of secondary residences in Malta. The country may maintain in force the restrictions contained in its national legislation on the acquisition of secondary residences by nationals of Member States who have not legally resided in Malta for at least five years.

    States that have been Members since 1 January 2007

    Bulgaria and Romania have been Member States of the European Union since 1 January 2007. The Treaty of Accession of these two countries was signed by the Heads of State and Government in Luxembourg on 25 April 2005. It provides for transitional periods for the acquisition of secondary residences and agricultural land and forests:

    • a five-year transitional period for the acquisition of secondary residences by Community citizens not resident in Bulgaria/Romania;
    • a transitional period of no more than seven years for the acquisition of agricultural land and forests. This period will not apply to self-employed farmers residing in Bulgaria or Romania.

    The European Commission has drawn up a report on the results of the negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania[pdf].

    Scandinavian countries: Denmark and Finland (the Åland Islands)

    Protocol 1 on the acquisition of secondary residences in Denmark is part of the Treaty on European Union. It stipulates that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of capital, Denmark may maintain the existing legislation on the acquisition of second homes. However, it should be underlined that any discrimination on grounds of nationality is strictly forbidden under Article 12 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. A European national residing in Denmark may therefore acquire a secondary residence under the same conditions as a Danish national. A Danish national not residing in Denmark, by contrast, is subject to the same conditions as any other European national residing outside the country. In short, nationals should not enjoy any privileged treatment in their Member State.

    Finland has sovereignty over the Åland Islands, which enjoy special status under international law, with relative autonomy as negotiated in the League of Nations in 1921. Protocol No 2, which is part of the Finnish Accession Treaty, stipulates that the provisions of the EC Treaty apply with certain derogations. The Åland Islands may therefore maintain the national provisions in force on 1 January 1994 regarding, inter alia, restrictions on the right of natural and legal persons to acquire and hold real property without permission by the competent authorities of the islands. There should be no discrimination concerning such acquisition of property. Finland must ensure that the same treatment applies to all natural and legal persons of the Member States in the Åland Islands.