§4.4.1 Cross-cutting issues

In explanation of the rationale behind Article 3(9) of the Directive, the 2013 Commission Report on the application of the UCPD (420) noted that: ‘The main reasons are: the higher financial risk in respect of financial services and immovable property (as compared to other goods and services); the particular inexperience of consumers in these areas (combined with a lack of transparency, in particular of financial operations); particular vulnerabilities found in both sectors that make consumers susceptible to both promotional practices and pressure; the experience of the competent financial enforcement bodies with a nationally grown system; and finally the functioning and the stability of the financial markets as such.’ It follows from Article 3(9) UCPD that its rules provide for minimum harmonisation only for financial services and immovable property. Member States can therefore adopt more restrictive or prescriptive national rules as long as these rules comply with EU law. In the Citroën Belux case, the Court ruled that Member States may lay down a general prohibition on combined offers made to consumers where at least one of the components is a financial service (421). In this case, the combined offer made by Citroën was the inclusion of 6 months’ free comprehensive insurance with the purchase of a new Citroën car. Furthermore the Court clarified that Article 3(9): ‘[…] does not impose any limit as regards how stringent national rules may be in that regard or lay down any criteria regarding the degree of complexity or risk which those services must involve in order to be covered by more stringent rules.’ (422) The Commission’s study on how the UCPD applies to financial services and immovable property (423) showed that the exemption has been widely used by Member States. The study reveals that most of these additional rules consist of sector-specific pre-contractual and contractual information obligations (424). It also found that a significant number of bans predominantly concern direct selling and promotional practices (425), practices that take advantage of particular vulnerabilities (426), or the prevention of conflicts of interest (427). The Commission Report on the application of the UCPD noted that although extensive national rules exist, the UCPD has been cited as the legal basis in at least half of cases concerning unfair practices in the fields of financial services and immovable property (428). Article 5(2)(a) UCPD on the requirements of professional diligence seems particularly relevant to traders acting towards consumers within the fields of immovable property and financial services (429). If the trader does not act with the standard of skill and care which can reasonably be expected from a professional within these fields of commercial activity, the consumer might suffer significant economic consequences. The most commonly reported unfair practices (within the meaning of the UCPD) in relation to both financial services (430) and immovable property concern a lack of essential information at the advertising stage and misleading descriptions of products (431). Online offers can lack information on the main characteristics of the consumer credit, or the initially displayed credit costs do not include all applicable charges or are not presented in a clear, intelligible and unambiguous manner, as required by Articles 7 (1), (2) and (4) of the UCPD (432). These practices may also entail breaches of other consumer legislation, in particular the Consumer Credit Directive and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive.

← 4.4 · All articles · 4.4.2 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07