a longer life-time for products : a win

« A LONGER LIFE-TIME FOR PRODUCTS : A WIN-WIN SOLUTION FOR
EUROPEAN CONSUMERS & BUSINESSES » - CONFERENCE IN EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT 21 OCTOBER 2015
- MISSING LINK ECO-DESIGN & SALES GUARANTEES ? 1. Public Consultation Online Contracts for Tangible Consumer Goods
- COM question : « Which should be the criteria for establishing the quality of the
tangible goods? Should there be any additional/different criteria in addition to those
already provided by Article 2 of the Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive? Please
explain. »
- ULC Response : Conformément aux objectifs de l’Economie circulaire qui souhaite
promouvoir la durabilité des biens, y compris en matière de garantie, il faudrait préciser
le point d) de l’article 2.2 de la Directive 1999/44 en stipulant p.ex. : « s’il présente la
qualité incluant la durée de vie et la disponibilité de pièces de rechange et les prestations
habituelles y compris le software nécessaire d’un bien de même type auxquelles le
consommateur peut raisonnablement s’attendre, eu égard à la nature du bien y compris
des normes européennes minimales…. ». Concernant ce dernier critère, nous renvoyons à
titre d’exemple probant au Règlement (UE) n° 666/2013 concernant les exigences
d’écoconception applicables aux aspirateurs, plus particulièrement l’annexe I établissant
une durabilité minimum pour la durée de vie utile du moteur et du flexible.
La loi française oblige le fabricant ou l’importateur d’informer le consommateur sur la
durée de disponibilité de pièces détachées1. Son utilité peut se mesurer à la lumière de
l’engagement pris p.ex. par Apple (voir notice Garantie Légale du Vendeur et Pièces
Détachées) : « En France, les pièces détachées qu’Apple met à disposition sur le marché
et qu’elle considère indispensable à l’utilisation des biens seront disponibles pendant 5
ans ». Il s’en dégage un nouveau critère de conformité sur base de l’art. 2.1. (a) de la
Directive 1999/44 (« description donnée par le vendeur »).
2. Implications of modified conformity criteria
2.1. Insofar as ecodesign requirements impose minimum life-time standards for the
placing on the market of specific goods, consumers must be entitled to claim non
conformity during the whole minimum life-time period. Consequently a general 2 years
1
Uniquement pour les ventes en magasin car la Directive droits des consommateurs interdit d’imposer cette
obligation d’information précontractuelle pour les ventes à distance et hors établissement commercial
1
cut-off rule for lack of conformity claims as from the delivery of the goods, appears
incompatible with product specific ecodesign requirements.
2.2. Ecodesign requirements should not be intended only for the management of
conformity assessment but consumers should be
directly and practically informed about :
(a) the minimum life-time in practical terms (vacuum cleaner : « the hose shall be
durable so that it is still useable after 40 000 oscillations under strain, operational motor
lifetime shall be greater than or equal to 500 hours », these references not being intended
for consumers),
(b) the expected normal use of the goods ( the operational motor life-time for a vacuum
cleaner presupposes that e.g. « Dust receptacle and filters shall be replaced at
appropriate time intervals »).
2.3. If longer life-time of consumer goods becomes a key policy objective while
considering also the increasing complexity of goods (electronic components …), it should
be logical that :
(a) the presumption of non conformity should be longer than the EU minimum of 6
months after delivery with Portugal and France2 setting
a precedent of 2 years for the reversal of burden of proof, i.e. the seller must demonstrate
improper consumer use of the goods, or at least
(b) « … sellers of consumer goods should examine the defects during the first two years
of the legal guarantee and only charge the consumer for it if the defect has been caused
by improper use » - Parliament Resolution on Resource efficiency : moving towards a
circular economy. The Italian judges decided similarly concerning Apple’s
legal/commercial guarantees that the legal guarantee would be deprived of its effet utile
by imposing an impossible task on consumers after the first 6 months. Consequently,
Apple should take back the goods even after that period, have it examined by its own
technical departments but may charge examination costs if the non conformity is
attributable to the consumer3.
3. Necessity for minimum life-time/ spare parts availability standards
in ecodesign regulations
The Ecodesign Regulation (EU) No 666/2013 for vacuum cleaners serves as a model for
our argumentation.
Unfortunately other product specific ecodesign Regulations do not adopt the same policy
by focusing on energy consumption and playing even into the hands of obsolescence.
2
3
As from March 2016
TAR Lazio judgment of 9 May 2012
2
Regulation (EU) No 617/2013 for computers and computer servers includes the following
requirement :
« From 1 July 2014 : If a notebook computer is operated by battery/ies that cannot be
accessed and replaced by a non-professional user, in addition to the information specified
in point 7.1, manufacturers shall provide in the technical documentation, and make
available on free-access websites and on the external packaging of the notebook
computer, the following information ‘The battery[ies] in this product cannot be easily
replaced by users themselves’. The information provided on the external packaging of the
notebook computer shall be clearly visible and legible and it shall be provided in all the
official languages of the country where the product is marketed. »
A final consideration : What is the practical value of Apple’s information in France that
« the spare parts which Apple makes available on the market and which it considers
indispensable for the proper use of its products, will be available for 5 years »
considering e.g. that the company is being suspected of using its updating programmes to
affect the functionality of older computer versions thus inducing consumers to buy new
ones (cf. iOS 94).
Bob SCHMITZ – [email protected]
4
cf. Belgian daily Le Soir 24 September 2015 « Apple se paie-t-il votre pomme ? »
3