Associação Portuguesa para a Defesa do Consumidor
DECO
DECO is Portugal's consumer protection association, defending consumer rights and helping people make informed choices about products, services, and their fundamental rights to health, safety, and justice.
Focus Areas
2024-2025
2020-2023
2017-2019
ID: 005887421809-56
Lobbying Activity
Portuguese consumer group demands safeguards for energy digitalization
3 Nov 2025
Topic — The European Commission initiative aims to integrate digital technologies and AI into energy.
Message — DECO calls for inclusive digital literacy programs to prevent consumer exclusion. They demand a clear regulatory framework and a civil liability regime for AI-related damages.12
Why — This ensures consumers receive fair benefits from innovation without compromising their rights.3
Impact — Opaque algorithms and excessive personalization could discriminate against or manipulate vulnerable households.4
Portuguese consumer group urges focus on repair and reuse
31 Oct 2025
Topic — The consultation addresses the proposed Circular Economy Act to enhance EU economic sustainability.
Message — DECO urges the EU to prioritize prevention, reuse, and repair over recycling to save consumers money. They demand a ban on toxic chemicals like PFAS and liability for e-commerce platforms. The group also calls for lower taxes on repair services.123
Portuguese consumer group DECO demands ambitious EU digital rules
23 Oct 2025
Message — DECO seeks an ambitious law banning dark patterns and addictive digital designs. They request a new enforcement forum to improve cooperation between regulatory bodies. The group demands stricter rules for influencer marketing and automated AI contracts.123
Why — Clearer legal standards would simplify the group's consumer advocacy and litigation efforts.45
DECO warns simplification must not compromise EU food safety
10 Oct 2025
Topic — The consultation proposes simplifying EU rules for food safety and marketing authorizations.
Message — DECO argues the precautionary principle must remain the cornerstone of food regulation to ensure consumer safety. They demand that digital labeling remains strictly complementary and that transparency for GMOs is not reduced.123
Why — Maintaining current standards protects consumer health and preserves public trust in food systems.45
Portuguese Consumer Group Urges Lower Taxes to Boost Electrification
9 Oct 2025
Topic — The EU Electrification Action Plan aims to shift energy demand from fossil fuels to electricity.
Message — DECO calls for a universal 6% VAT rate on all electricity bill components. They request financial incentives for batteries and heat pumps along with simplified licensing rules. The group suggests creating technical networks to help consumers improve their energy literacy.123
Why — Lower taxes and subsidies would reduce the financial burden of green energy for households.4
Impact — Vulnerable citizens unable to afford new technology will face higher relative economic costs.5
DECO calls for mandatory targets to eradicate energy poverty
5 Sept 2025
Message — DECO calls for mandatory targets to end energy poverty by 2050 and protections against utility disconnections. They also demand standardized energy bills and specific support for local renewable energy communities.1234
Why — These measures would empower consumers while reducing the complexity and opacity of energy markets.56
Portuguese consumer group urges climate laws that protect the vulnerable
2 Sept 2025
Message — Resilience measures must prioritize social justice to ensure adaptation does not increase inequality. They advocate for the polluter-pays principle to shield consumers from unfair costs. The group also demands fair tariffs and better climate literacy.12
Why — This would protect households from predatory pricing and ensure insurance remains accessible.34
Impact — High-impact environmental sectors would be forced to pay for climate adaptation costs.5
DECO Urges Stronger Digital Protections in EU Consumer Agenda
1 Aug 2025
Message — DECO calls for a Digital Fairness Act to ban manipulative dark patterns and algorithmic manipulation. They request a broader definition of consumer vulnerability and public funding for collective legal actions.123
Why — This would provide consumer associations with essential public funding for legal representation.4
Impact — Digital platforms lose the ability to use addictive designs and manipulative marketing.5
Response to EU label on product durability and EU notice on consumers’ legal guarantee rights
28 Jul 2025
DECO welcomes the European Commission initiative and aim to introduce an EU label for the producer guarantee of durability and an EU harmonised notice to better inform consumers on their legal guarantee rights. Although DECO supports the initiative, we must highlight that the fact that the harmonised notice shall provide, in accordance with Article 22a of Directive 2011/83/EU,a harmonised reference to the minimum duration of two years for the legal guarantee, and a general reference to the possibility that the duration of the legal guarantee of conformity may be longer under national law, without allowing specifying the periods actually applicable in the different Member States, may compromise the objective of the initiative and cause considerable confusion among consumers. Although we understand the desire for simplification whenever appropriate, this is one of those cases where simplification compromises the information and could have a detrimental effect. A notice that provides information about a minimum two-year guarantee cannot be considered to provide better information or greater awareness of rights in a country where, for example, the guarantee is three years. Less informed or more distracted consumers may be misled into thinking that they benefit from a shorter guarantee period and fail to exercise their rights. Furthermore, not all consumers are familiar with digital tools, so it is optimistic to assume that they will access the information via a QR code. We find this fundamental point clearly problematic. Having made this initial observation, we would like to make some additional comments and suggestions on the designs presented for the notice and the label. Regarding the EU label: The word GARANT is not clear, and therefore we would not recommend using it neither on the notice nor the label. The title for the commercial guarantee of durability should in our view be: producer guarantee of durability. It is important that the label remains a multi-language label so that all consumers across the EU can be able to understand it, and also that the title is clear, so our suggestion would be for the title to be: producer guarantee of durability, highlighted in local language, with the translation into other languages. We also consider that a mere visual reference to the legal guarantee, the design of which, being new, is not yet recognised by consumers, is insufficient to remind consumers of the existence of the legal guarantee. In our view, a written reference to the legal guarantee and the fact that it applies in parallel is necessary. The visual reminder of the existence of the legal guarantee of conformity (point II in Annex II to the Implementing Regulation) is not sufficiently clear and can somehow suggest that the label concerns the legal guarantee itself. Although we consider a written reference to the legal guarantee to be absolutely necessary, if the use of a graphic reminder alone is maintained, or if the visual design with a written reference is considered, as we advocate, we would suggest going back to the designs related to the puzzle shapes to show that the commercial guarantee and the legal guarantee complement each other. We also suggest explicit reference to years in full, rather than to a calendar image (point IV to the Implementing Reg.) Regarding the notice: We support the title Legal Guarantee, but like the rest of the information it should be translated in local language. Following on from the general comment above, we would highly recommend putting the following sentence in bold Some countries have longer legal guarantee periods and adding including FI, IE, NL PT, ES and SE. The notice should contribute to raising consumer awareness about the extension of the guarantee duration of 1 year for consumers that opt for repair(applicable from 2026). We suggest that the following sentence is added to the notice if you choose repair, your guarantee protection will be extended for 1 year.
Read full responsePortuguese consumer group urges fairer, standardized EU investment accounts
8 Jul 2025
Topic — The initiative seeks a European blueprint for savings and investment accounts across Member States.
Message — DECO recommends a standardised design with simple pre-contractual documents and transparent costs for all investors. They request tax incentives that benefit those who save less rather than wealthier households. The group also proposes a hybrid product that combines capital guarantee and risk taking.123
Why — This would allow a wider access to markets for households with low income.4
Impact — Higher income households would lose the extra tax benefits they currently receive over others.5
DECO urges EU to toughen multimodal passenger rights rules
5 Mar 2024
Topic — EU initiative to regulate passenger rights and protections for multimodal transport journeys.
Message — DECO demands mandatory financial compensation for travel disruptions and clearer rules for assistance. They argue operators should not escape liability merely by providing basic information.12
Why — Passengers would receive higher refunds and guaranteed assistance during cross-border travel disruptions.3
Impact — Transport providers face higher operational costs and strict deadlines for processing refunds.4
Portuguese Consumer Group DECO Calls for Stronger Travel Rights
1 Feb 2024
Message — DECO requests that the directive covers individual travel services and strengthens accountability for linked bookings. They advocate for harmonized financial sanctions and the right to cancel trips during personal medical emergencies.123
Why — Travelers would secure more transparent contracts and faster, guaranteed refunds when operators fail.45
Response to Evaluation of the Consumer Programme
31 Aug 2023
O Programa Consumidores encontrava-se centrado em quatro objetivos específicos: reforçar a segurança dos produtos graças a uma fiscalização mais eficaz; melhorar a informação dos consumidores e prestar apoio às suas organizações; reforçar os direitos dos consumidores, através de um melhor acesso a vias de reparação, incluindo mecanismos RAL; reforçar o respeito pelos direitos dos consumidores, melhorando a cooperação entre organismos nacionais responsáveis pela aplicação da legislação. A DECO considera que qualquer dos quatro objetivos do programa, embora possam ter conhecido progressos, se mantêm como necessidades prementes para os consumidores, considerando ademais que os problemas que as ações financiadas ao abrigo do programa procuravam abordar, como as complexidades decorrentes da digitalização, a imperativa necessidade de adotar padrões de consumo verdadeiramente mais sustentáveis, o envelhecimento da população, a exclusão social e a vulnerabilidade dos consumidores, continuam a assumir enorme relevância, e em alguns casos, de forma ainda mais acentuada, como é o caso da vulnerabilidade dos consumidores que conhece hoje novas e maiores dimensões. Concretamente no que tange às ações previstas no Regulamento relativo ao programa plurianual «Consumidores» para 2014-2020, entende-se ser de salientar os pontos seguintes. Relativamente ao apoio às organizações de consumidores à escala da União, através do seu financiamento, e às organizações de consumidores a nível regional, nacional e da União, através do reforço de capacidades, a DECO considera que os apoios promovidos foram fundamentais para o desenvolvimento de importantes projetos de capacitação à escala europeia com resultados muito satisfatórios, como o Consumer Pro. Entende, assim, que será de considerar igualmente o apoio através de financiamento a organizações de consumidores ao nível nacional de forma a permitir um maior investimento na formação. No que respeita a ações com vista a assegurar uma maior transparência dos mercados de consumo e da informação aos consumidores, a fim de garantir que estes disponham de dados comparáveis e fiáveis, que lhes permitam comparar preços, a qualidade e sustentabilidade dos produtos e serviços, é de referir que os desenvolvimentos do mercado não têm permitido, ao legislador, face, designadamente, à morosidade do processo legislativo, acompanhar e dar resposta às necessidades de um mercado em permanente evolução. Apesar de terem sido dados alguns passos em termos de legislação, por ex., em termos de práticas de redução de preço, a verdade é que as medidas implementadas se têm revelado insuficientes para garantir que os consumidores têm acesso a informação transparente sobre os preços e não são induzidos em erro. Esta é uma matéria em que se considera necessário haver mais fiscalização. Por outro lado, relativamente a ferramentas comparativas que abordam a sustentabilidade dos produtos/serviços, verifica-se que incompreensivelmente as iniciativas legislativas apresentadas recentemente nesta área não incluem qualquer sistema de verificação que se considera necessário de forma a facultar aos consumidores ferramentas fidedignas. Por último, relativamente à coordenação das ações de fiscalização/controlo da aplicação da lei no que respeita ao agora Regulamento(UE) 2017/2394 do PE e do Conselho, de 12 de dez. de 2017, considera-se que o sistema implementado é um instrumento poderoso para reforçar a aplicação das regras de proteção dos consumidores na UE, mas que o seu verdadeiro potencial está longe de ser utilizado. As autoridades deveriam utilizar plenamente os poderes previstos no Regulamento, mas têm-se limitado demasiado ao diálogo com os infratores, o que nem sempre é a solução adequada. Além disso, são necessárias mais ações de fiscalização e as autoridades precisam de reagir mais rapidamente às infrações, fazendo uso dos poderes que lhes são conferidos,nomeadamente, quando os infratores ignoram a posição tomada pelas autoridades.
Read full responseResponse to Payment services – revision of EU rules (new Regulation)
16 Aug 2023
DECO welcome this proposal. We consider the PSD2 needs to be profoundly revised especially regarding fraud, liability and redress. General comments: The proposals to address consumer/user confidence by enhancing their protection are very much welcome. In recent years the PSD2 introduced particular measures that had some positive impacts, in particular the reduction of payers liability to 50 Euros, the right to be reimbursed in case of erroneous direct debits for a period of 8 weeks, prohibition of additional charges for paying with a debit or a credit card, and the implementation of strong customer authorisation (SCA) requirements. However, frauds and scams remain a concern as the targe is now the payer and not the payment instrument or channel. This means that the regulatory framework needs to address these types of attacks on consumers, including phishing and spoofing. In many of these cases, payers are tricked or nudged to perform actions such as sharing their credentials or codes, such as one-time passwords (OTP), or performing payments from their accounts. These actions are carried out by payers but influenced by fraudsters who find ways to deceive them. Although the action is performed by the payer, it is clear there was no intention to perform that action. In this context, the revision of PSD2 with the proposed PSR lacks a stronger protection framework to address these new types of fraud and scams, with a wide range of provision, measures, and requirements on PSPs, including: a clear definition of what constitutes gross negligence, a liability regime that exempts users in these cases, with a right to immediate and full reimbursement, sharing of responsibility between payers and payees PSPs, improve transaction monitoring by PSPs, identification of fake websites and IBAN numbers used by scammers, obligation for PSPs to participate in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, to make Recital 122 effective. With regards to contactless payments, the COM Retail Payments Strategy mentioned an assessment of the feasibility and adequacy of introducing the functionality of allowing consumers to set-up their preferred choice of limits to contactless payments. This would respond to the concerns consumers have of having the limit set as a standard of 50 Euros, and knowing there is a discussion of raising that limit. Consumers would be much more likely to feel confident in using contactless payments if they have a choice to set their own limit, possibly in ranges, increasing gradually the number of users. Information requirements applicable to cash withdrawal services Comment: This provision is welcome as it provides consumers with the information on any charges applicable in cash withdrawals beforehand (Article 7). Rights and obligations in relation to the provision and use of payment services Common provisions Comment: The proposal to extend the surcharging prohibition to credit transfers and direct debits in all currencies of the EU is welcome (Article 28). We agree that rules for merchant initiated transactions (MITs) and direct debits are aligned, applying the same consumer protection measures, such as refunds, to direct debits and MITs as both are transactions initiated by the payee. Payment systems and access to accounts held with credit institutions Comment: The changes to make access to a payment account by Payment Institutions (PIs) are relevant due eliminate any unjustified limitations to that access (Article 32). Open banking (account information services and payment initiation services) Comments: The provisions requiring setting up a dashboard of authorisations and consent of users, with the possibility to manage them, is welcome. However, it Is essential that supporting open banking in view of more competition does come at the expense of data security. Consumers should not be asked to enter personal security credential on third party websites. Personally-sensitive data shoul
Read full responseResponse to Payment services – revision of EU rules (Directive)
16 Aug 2023
DECO welcome this proposal. It is essential to have a thorough review of the PSD2. We agree with the conclusion of the impact assessment regarding consumers' at risk of fraud. COMMENTS Scope (Articles 1 and 2 and Recitals 13 and 68) The proposal for a Directive on licensing and supervision of payment institutions is largely based on Title II of PSD2, regarding Payment Service Providers, which only applies to payment institutions. It updates and clarifies the provisions relating to PIs, and integrates former EMIs as a sub-category of PIs (and consequently repeals the second Electronic Money Directive, 2009/110/EC). Furthermore, it includes provisions concerning cash withdrawal services provided by retailers (without a purchase) or independent ATM deployers and amends the Settlement Finality Directive (Directive 98/26/EC). Comments: The broadening of the scope to include e-money services in the Directive and under the Regulation is welcome since it will increase the safeguards for users of these services along with the payment services already covered by PSD2 The inclusion of independent ATM services is also positive There is still a number of exclusions that leave many services out of a proper and necessary regulatory framework The case of whether e-wallet services (such as Apple or Google Pay) are covered or not needs to be clarified these services are widely used for payments across the world, being very popular in the EU too, thus should be included The proposal to have a particular attention to the provision of wallets in the future review, envisaged to be carried out 5 years after entry into force of the Directive, is inadequate considering the importance of these services already now. Supervision of payment institutions exercising the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Article 31) Comments: With regards to the role of competent authorities of host Member States (MS) could be more enhanced with more powers there are cases where the users need to lodge complaints and follow-up on them but are required to find the right competent authority of the home MS. The creation of a central contact point at the request of host MS is a positive measure; it should be mandatory rather than a possibility. Services where cash is provided in retail stores without a purchase (Article 37) Comment: This provision is welcome as it may address the issue of diminishing access to cash due to continuous closures of ATMs and branches. Review clause (Article 43) Comment: The review period of 5 years is extensive considering the pace at which innovation in services and new providers come into the payments space, as well as types of fraud and scams are developed and implemented, making it essential that the regulatory framework is both up to date with that pace and future proof.
Read full responsePortuguese consumer group demands unified dashboards and data safeguards
16 Aug 2023
Topic — This initiative proposes a framework for sharing financial data while ensuring customer control.
Message — DECO calls for guidelines on credit scoring and stricter safeguards against using sensitive personal data. They also recommend standardized or single dashboards to prevent consumer confusion when managing data permissions.123
Why — Consumers gain stronger privacy protections and more intuitive tools for managing their financial data sharing.4
Impact — Financial firms lose the ability to exploit sensitive personal data for profiling and pricing.5
DECO urges EU to ban investment inducements and regulate finfluencers
16 Aug 2023
Message — DECO requests a total ban on commission-based payments to prevent biased financial advice. They also oppose reclassifying retail clients as professional investors to avoid mis-selling.12
Why — This would secure funding for consumer groups to lead financial education programs.3
Impact — Financial firms and online influencers would lose revenue from commission-based sales and advertising.4
Response to Promoting sustainability in consumer after-sales
20 Apr 2023
Contributos da DECO, em anexo
Read full responseResponse to Fighting against online piracy of live content
9 Feb 2023
B. Objetivo da iniciativa e meios para o alcançar: A nosso ver, a melhor forma de combater a pirataria em linha passa pela tomada de medidas de diferente natureza: 1. Por um lado, torna-se necessário apostar em medidas de consciencialização dos consumidores quanto aos seus direitos e obrigações em ambiente digital, apetrechando-os da informação ou conhecimentos necessários para saber quando estão a aceder ilegitimamente a um conteúdo protegido por direitos de autor ou direitos conexos. Uma aposta continuada na formação e informação dos consumidores será certamente uma ferramenta decisiva na sua progressiva consciencialização quanto aos efeitos do acesso ilegítimo a conteúdos protegidos, quer numa visão pessoal enquanto indivíduos, quer numa visão global enquanto sociedade. 2. Por outro lado, o atual modelo de negócio de canais televisivos premium de conteúdos pagos, em especial os denominados canais desportivos, deve ser merecedor de críticas e objeto de introdução de medidas que fomentem, por um lado uma maior concorrência ou mesmo a sua efetividade, e, por outro, uma maior acessibilidade aos serviços e conteúdos que disponibilizam, por parte dos utilizadores. Com efeito, apesar de uma aparente concorrência de diferentes canais desportivos, na realidade essa concorrência não existe e estamos perante verdadeiros monopólios, uma vez que cada um desses canais detém a exclusividade de transmissão de certos conteúdos (transmissões das diferentes ligas nacionais de futebol, por exemplo), obrigando os utilizadores a subscrever não um, mas vários canais desportivos. Igualmente, a própria subscrição tende a ser mensal ou anual, não permitindo, por exemplo, a subscrição pay-per-view individual de cada evento. Estas práticas intencionais dos agentes económicos tornam o acesso a certos eventos e conteúdos proibitivo à grande maioria das famílias e acabam por fomentar, de forma preponderante, o seu acesso ilegítimo. 3. No nosso entender, uma solução eficaz de combate a este tipo de pirataria passará obrigatoriamente por medidas que contrariem estas práticas monopolistas dos canais premium, nomeadamente obrigando os diversos agentes económicos a negociar entre si formas de disponibilização, em concorrência, da transmissão dos mesmos eventos e conteúdos. Pensamos que esta medida, só por si, desincentivará, de forma significativa e preponderante, o acesso a conteúdos pirateados.
Read full responseResponse to Short-term rental initiative
6 Jan 2023
Em anexo, os contributos da DECO - Associação Portuguesa para a Defesa do Consumidor
Read full responseResponse to Instant Payments
21 Dec 2022
DECO, the Portuguese Consumer Protection Association, welcomes the proposal for a Regulation on Instant payments (IPs). To achieve a widespread take up of IPs, especially from consumers, it is crucial to have a regulatory framework making them available, accessible, and secure. To that end, we agree with the proposals to i) ensure that PSPs providing SEPA credit transfers must provide IPs; ii) that the cost for an IP is at most the same as a regular credit transfer; and iii) there are mechanisms to prevent fraud and errors, by checking the match between the IBAN and the payees name. However, we believe there are additional provisions needed to ensure that the Regulation is fit for purpose. Considering Article 1 for the proposed amendments to Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, we recommend the following under the corresponding Articles for amendment: Article 5b o Consider methodologies (or delegate to the EBA) to ensure that the cost of SEPA credit transfers is not increased in the meantime, and before the entry into force of the proposed Regulation, hampering the envisaged levelling of IPs pricing at a lower level. Article 5c o Consider additional forms of confirmation of matching the IBAN with the payee, to address national specificities regarding natural persons names, the use of national identifiers such the tax identifier, and the use of commercial trade name for businesses; o The provision of the matching service must be compulsory and free of charge for consumers, only then the envisaged objectives of security and trust will be achieved. If there is a charge, consumers will be tempted to not using it, making what are useful provisions not applied in practice.
Read full responseResponse to Better protection for passengers and their rights
17 Jan 2022
Os nossos comentários em anexo
Read full response10 Jan 2022
Os materiais e objetos destinados a entrar em contacto (MCA) com os géneros alimentícios protegem os alimentos, mas podem também ter um impacto negativo na qualidade e segurança dos alimentos ao longo da cadeia alimentar. Sabe-se, por exemplo, que alguns químicos presentes nos materiais em contacto com os alimentos migram para, e assim contaminam os alimentos, criando potenciais riscos para a saúde dos consumidores.
Uma das iniciativas anunciadas como parte do Pacto Ecológico Europeu é o compromisso de assegurar que todas as embalagens no mercado da UE sejam reutilizáveis ou recicláveis até 2030, embora a DECO Associação suporte este objetivo, a utilização de resíduos de embalagens nos novos MCA pode aumentar quer as possíveis fontes de contaminação quer a quantidade de químicos que podem migrar das embalagens para os alimentos.
A presença de substâncias não intencionalmente adicionadas pode, muitas vezes, atingir níveis mais elevados nas embalagens de alimentos reciclados, uma vez que os materiais reciclados podem conter contaminantes, tais como corantes ou aditivos, enquanto que a utilização anterior da embalagem pode contribuir para a presença de contaminantes indesejados e/ou inesperados.
Também a Estratégia Europeia para os Plásticos, com a decisão de proibir certos plásticos de uso único - tais como talheres, pratos e palhinhas de plástico – acentua algumas das preocupações da DECO Associação à medida que os operadores empresariais mudam para alternativas para as quais não existem regras adequadas da UE, tais como papel e cartão ou bambu.
Assim, é crucial o desenvolvimento novas e rigorosas regras da UE é para evitar a exposição dos consumidores a substâncias químicas nocivas que migram de novas alternativas de plástico.
A economia circular só terá êxito se os consumidores estiverem confiantes de que as matérias-primas secundárias são seguras, para isso a UE precisa de colmatar as lacunas regulamentares que poderiam permitir aos produtos químicos preocupantes um segundo ciclo de vida nas embalagens e, em última análise, nos alimentos.
Quer seja feita de materiais recuperados ou virgens, a UE precisa de assegurar o mesmo nível de proteção para a saúde humana. Normas menos rigorosas para os materiais reciclados para encorajar a sua utilização irão, pelo contrário, contrariar a transição para uma economia circular bem-sucedida: embora os riscos possam ser geridos em materiais virgens durante a primeira utilização, quando se trata de fim de vida e reincorporação em bens futuros, os riscos tornam-se cada vez mais imprevisíveis, uma vez que há pouco controlo efetivo sobre onde os materiais reciclados vão parar.
Read full responseResponse to European Strategy on international energy engagement
16 Dec 2021
Em anexo
Read full responseResponse to Common chargers for mobile phones and similar devices
18 Nov 2021
• We have verified through our tests that almost all recent smartphones allow fast charging and can effectively be charged in less time with fast chargers.
However, we also noted that many of these devices will only be able to take full advantage of their potential in terms of speed of charging if the charger and smartphone share the same fast charging standard.
These are clearly important consumer information failures.
As stated in the document in "Reasons and objectives of the proposal" we agree that it is essential to "introduce requirements so that, when purchasing a mobile phone or other similar radio equipment, end-users receive the necessary information about their charging performance characteristics and on the charging device that can be used with it".
• Also as stated in the document under "Reasons and objectives of the proposal", it is very important to "introduce requirements so that end users are not required to purchase a new charging device whenever they purchase a new mobile phone or other similar radio equipment". Consumers should only need to purchase a new charger if they want/need faster charging. Otherwise, you will most likely already have a compatible charger at home. It is also true that many consumers usually charge smartphones or other equipment at night and in this situation fast charging is unnecessary and should be avoided, as slow charging is more beneficial by allowing to extend the life of batteries.
Read full responseResponse to Update of the Better Internet for Children Strategy (BIK Strategy)
28 Oct 2021
A. Context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check:
We fully agree with the contextualization of the problem. Indeed, short-term accommodation rental ("STR") services are an increasingly important part of the EU tourism ecosystem and therefore cannot or should not be neglected. Its rapid evolution and acceptance by consumers demonstrate that it fulfils a set of needs.
Nevertheless, if initially it was just an offer made between private individuals, the truth is that there are more and more professionals working in this business model. The fast growth of STRs raised a number of concerns: local communities are particularly concerned about pressure on the local affordable housing market and sustainable development of cities, including urban planning. In addition, a number of concerns were also raised about compliance with applicable rules, such as health and safety requirements.
B. Objectives and Policy options:
We agree with the defined targeted measures to achieve these objectives:
(i) Access of public authorities to data on STRs;
(ii) Market access conditions for STR players and level playing field.
In fact, we believe that the access of public authorities to data on STRs is essential to know the true context of this economic activity, its strengths and weaknesses, so that the measures (administrative or legal) necessary for the development of this business model can be designed, without obstacles to the entry of new players, allowing the coexistence of private and professional people and even creating, if necessary, a code of conduct or guidelines for the correct development of the activity.
Read full responseResponse to Package travel – review of EU rules
16 Sept 2021
DECO considers that the current Directive needs to be reviewed in view of addressing several shortcomings, and that the evaluation including a thorough assessment of whether the original objectives of the Directive are still fit for purpose as when the Directive was first proposed is absolutely key and should really be the starting point. Thus, and in particular, it is important to assess whether the objective of ensuring a high level of consumer protection is compatible and consistent with the option of leaving out of the scope stand-alone services, focusing only financial protection on insolvency, and with the lack of a liability regime for the performance of LTAs. In DECO’s view it is not.
The review of the PTD should, in DECO’s perspective, focus on strong measures to enforce consumers' rights, including the creation of sectorial ADRs and mandatory participation to ADR schemes for traders as well as introducing strict deadlines to deal with consumer complaints, but also on mitigating problems of interpretation and application of the Directive that have arisen, regarding, for instance, the coverage and scope of insolvency protection schemes.
Any EU measures amending the PTD must have the fulfilment of passenger rights obligations as a primary objective, without reducing the existing level of consumer protection.
DECO encourages the European Commission to consider amending the Directive to ensure that all European consumers benefit from an effective and broader scope of financial protection of prepayments, including cancellations which should not be limited, but also include those in extraordinary circumstances and for respective vouchers. The revision shall ensure that consumer’s refund claims are also protected in case where the package travel contracts are terminated on grounds not related to the organiser’s insolvency, such as due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances.
Furthermore, the complex definition of LTA’s and the blurred boundary between packages and LTAs has proved problematic, and there is widespread agreement on the need to simplify several concepts. Indeed, consumers often do not realise whether they are contracting a package or an LTA, and will find it difficult if not impossible to prove what they have purchased.
This is more problematic because the PTD on what regards LTA’s only lays down obligations regarding information duties and limited protection in the event of insolvency, without providing rules making these operators liable for the performance of the contract. This leaves consumers very unprotected in situations where, although they may appear to have purchased a package, they have in fact formally purchased an LTA. Moreover, and as we have anticipated, in order to avoid the stricter liability regime of packages, we have seen many companies creating/adapting their business model based on LTA’s, when in fact they are selling packages.
The definition and obligations arising from contracts related to LTA’s deserve further reflection and a review of the PTD should further develop contractual obligations resulting from LTA contracts, otherwise such practices aimed at avoiding a more demanding liability regime may be encouraged, leaving consumers unprotected.
The review of the PTD will also be an opportunity to address certain shortcomings identified in the application of the directive which, in our view, involves clarifying and densifying the rules on the right of withdrawal in case of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances.
The Directive should clarify that any official declaration concerning travel advice from either the country of origin or destination is sufficient to ensure full refund, as well as a time limit within which the consumer may exercise this right. Deco also deems necessary a specific regime for cases where the traveller can no longer travel for exceptional reasons, duly justified such as hospitalisation or a sudden serious illness,in which no penalty should be applied.
Read full response2 Sept 2021
Our contributes attached
Read full responseResponse to Consumer Credit Agreement – review of EU rules
27 Aug 2021
DECO welcomes this proposal reviewing Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers (CCD) to better adapt it to the evolution in the market and tackle arrears.
We consider that some provisions will tend to increase the level of consumer protection, reflecting the views expressed by consumer representatives: the extension of the scope to include loans below 200 and up to 100.000 EUR; the introduction of caps on cost; a ban on tying practices and of unsolicited credit offers; stricter creditworthiness assessment and outcome implications; better adaptation of pre-contractual information documents to digital provision and the introduction of the overview document; and more measures to assist consumers in arrears. Nevertheless, we consider that there is need for more detailed and defined wording for some provisions.
We propose additions (underlined): definitions of for early repayment “before the date agreed in the credit agreement.”; for ‘debt advisory services’ “operators which are not creditors, credit intermediaries, providers of crowdfunding credit services or credit servicers,”; in Article 7 “availability or the cost of a credit or, where applicable, the total amount payable by the consumer shall be prohibited”; Article 8 should specify that exclusions should only refer to radio; In Article 10, par 5 “shall be clearly legible and given”; in Article 20 “contracting parties, including guarantors, are”.
The provisions on tying and bundling are similar to those under the MCD. Their wording can promote consumer detriment as experience in the transposition of the MCD in Portugal showed. Requiring opening or maintaining a payment or a savings account should be prohibited as consumers should be allowed to choose where to maintain their accounts and perform repayments using instruments such as credit transfers or direct debits. We consider that tying must be banned and all types of combined offers should be of a bundling nature. National provisions that ensure higher consumer protection should prevail.
Vague expressions should be eliminated: in Article 16 “a sufficiently large number” and “a wide range of products from across the market”; in Article 18, “significant increase” should be replaced setting metrics, and in par 4 should be clarified which are “well justified circumstances” and consider sharing of risk between creditors and loan takers in those exceptional cases; in Article 25: “a significant overrunning” and “regular overrunning”.
Article 17 should explicitly mention types of unsolicited credit that are forbidden, following Recital 44.
On early repayment, provisions in Article 29 must ensure that compensation claimed by the creditor shall not in any case exceed the amount of interest that the consumer would have paid during the period between the early repayment and the agreed date of termination of the credit agreement.
Regarding caps on credit costs, there should only be one modality - capping APRs, the indicator that reveals the actual cost of the loan. This would ensure a common practice within the EU and promote a Single Market approach. In addition, to support a transition towards a more sustainable context, the CCD could ensure that loans towards improving housing conditions and buying/installing energy efficient equipment are provided under a lower cap on cost. In Portugal, caps on consumer credit have been introduced since 2009 and this has eliminated predatory lending; the approach also includes a lower cap for loans for buying residential renewable energy equipment.
Financial literacy is crucial and consumer organizations can play a significant role in promoting it. We consider that the CCD could enhance this by adding provisions such as the following to Article 34: “These measures shall be taken in cooperation with consumer organizations, namely those providing debt support services.”A similar wording should be added to Article 36 to support consumer organizations in providing debt advisory services.
Read full responseResponse to Action plan on the digitalisation of the energy sector
16 Aug 2021
The digitalization of the energy sector can definitely bring benefits to consumers, and there is an urge to enable it more than before. Self-consumption, energy communities, aggregators, electric vehicles, dynamic electricity tariffs, are all concepts that need digitalization to be operational before they actually become a more common reality. In Portugal for example smart meter roll-out is still delayed, not all consumers have a smart meter that allows them to have a more accurate knowledge about their consumption, which can then support their decision to have a dynamic tariff or to invest in PV panels.
It is important to have an action plan on the digitalization of the energy sector, but it’s also important to accelerate the enforcement of the current rules from the Clean Energy Package. Furthermore, it’s in this sector that vulnerable consumers and consumers in energy poverty, need to be a priority in order to ensure that they also benefit from the digitalization, and aren’t left behind.
Read full responseResponse to Liability rules for Artificial Intelligence – The Artificial Intelligence Liability Directive (AILD)
28 Jul 2021
A. Context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check:
We absolutely agree with the need to adapt the current legal liability regime to the digital age and the circular economy, since artificial intelligence (AI) will certainly contribute decisively in the transition to a circular economy.
Indeed, as well mentioned in the document under analysis, certain characteristics of digital technologies, such as the intangibility of digital products, their dependence on data, complexity and connectivity, pose new challenges in the application of liability rules. The same happens with AI, as the autonomy of behaviours, continuous adaptation and self-learning, can cause problems in the compensation of eventual damages suffered by consumers.
As for the circular economy, AI can increase and accelerate the development of new products, components and materials suitable for a circular economy through interactive design processes assisted by machine learning, which allow rapid prototyping and testing. By combining real-time and historical product and consumer data, artificial intelligence can help increase product circulation and asset usage through pricing and demand forecasting, predictive maintenance, and intelligent inventory management.
However, according to the Directive, the imperfection of a product at the time it is put into circulation is decisive, and the rules in force are not clear about who should be held responsible for defects resulting from alterations to the products after they have been put into circulation.
B. Objectives and Policy options:
1. Product safety is a fundamental issue for the protection of consumer rights and interests. Indeed, consumers rightfully expect that all the products they buy or use are safe and comply with all applicable rules and legislation. However, the truth is that many dangerous products continue to be marketed, a fact made worse by the new online sales channels and the use of new technologies integrated in the products.
2. The General Product Safety Directive has proven to be a key piece of consumer protection policy, creating a general obligation for producers to place only safe products on the market. Naturally, it needs to be revised and this revision must introduce the necessary updates for a modern legislative framework that integrates the concerns that the most recent technological developments raise in this area, namely:
• Maintaining this new Regulation as a horizontal safety net that can fill gaps in specific sectors, based on the precautionary principle;
• Establish a uniform framework for market surveillance of all consumer products, with traceability along the supply chain and effective surveillance;
• Make the Regulation capable of dealing with new technologies;
• Ensure supply chain responsibility and fill gaps in international e-commerce;
• Reduce consumer exposure to harmful chemicals;
• Define mandatory product-specific safety requirements;
• Identify and address the weaknesses of the Directive, such as allowing the legislator to elect more demanding conformity assessment methods, setting strict criteria for child-friendly products, improving the effectiveness of product recalls and collecting data on accidents and injuries at the scale of the ME.
3. For these reasons, we consider that the best option will be option 1.b., that is, applying option 1.a. but broaden the range of damages for which compensation can be claimed under the Immaterial Damages Directive (eg: loss of data, breaches of privacy or environmental damage).
4. In terms of options for addressing procedural and evidence-related obstacles to obtaining compensation, we consider the combination of option 2.1.b with option 2.1.c as the most protective solution for the injured parties.
Read full responseResponse to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence
28 Jun 2021
I. Comentários na generalidade:
1. Numa apreciação geral, pode afirmar-se que a proposta de Regulamento sobre Inteligência Artificial (IA) fica muito aquém das expectativas das organizações de defesa de consumidor e ainda do próprio objetivo da Comissão de tornar a IA em algo em que os cidadãos considerem confiável.
Com efeito, as medidas ora estabelecidas são de alcance demasiado curto, aplicando-se a uma gama muito limitada de usos de IA e, consequentemente, a um conjunto igualmente limitado de problemas suscitados pela IA, não protegendo adequadamente os consumidores de eventuais (mas previsíveis) danos causados por produtos e serviços que integrem IA.
Torna-se por isso essencial alterar a redação desta proposta no sentido de permitir que tanto beneficie o indivíduo como a sociedade como um todo.
2. Ao longo da proposta é possível identificar uma presunção da Comissão de que a indústria está e irá estar em conformidade com as regras. Ora, com o devido respeito, consideramos que esta é uma abordagem totalmente errada, por estarem em causa avaliações complexas relacionadas com o uso de alto risco de tecnologia de IA, que deveria também levar em consideração como a tecnologia impacta nos direitos e liberdades das pessoas.
A regulamentação dos usos da IA deve ser alicerçada num quadro jurídico sólido que garanta que o desenvolvimento desta tecnologia é feito no respeito dos direitos fundamentais dos consumidores e dos valores europeus. Neste ponto a União Europeia deve mostrar liderança e definir um padrão global.
II. Comentários na especialidade:
1. A proposta encontra-se focalizada em estabelecer regras para aplicações de IA de "alto risco", excluindo injustificadamente uma grande variedade de usos de IA que afetam diariamente os consumidores em suas vidas diárias, como é mero exemplo a avaliação de riscos para um seguro saúde, realizada com recurso a algoritmos.
Quanto maior for o potencial dos sistemas algorítmicos para causar danos, quanto mais rigorosos deverão ser os requisitos legais.
2. Igualmente, pretende-se proibir o uso de certas práticas de IA, como por exemplo práticas utilizadas para distorcer o comportamento de um indivíduo. No entanto, para este efeito, apenas é considerado o risco de "dano físico e psicológico", deixando de fora outros previsíveis danos ou prejuízos causados aos consumidores, como danos financeiros ou discriminação económica.
3. Acresce que esta proposta é totalmente omissa em relação a direitos do consumidor que deveriam ser especificamente acautelados, designadamente o direito de contestar o resultado de uma decisão algorítmica ou exigir a supervisão humana na tomada de decisão, por exemplo. Tal como é omissa em estabelecer soluções quando ocorrem conflitos.
Neste ponto, entendemos que um Regulamento sobre IA deve incluir necessariamente um procedimento de reclamação e soluções eficazes, incluindo ações de tutela coletiva.
4. Mais entendemos que de um Regulamento desta natureza deverá ainda fazer parte a revisão de outras matérias relevantes, como por exemplo a responsabilidade civil do produtor e a segurança dos produtos, de forma a estabelecer um quadro jurídico abrangente que garanta um forte conjunto de direitos para os consumidores, nomeadamente a garantia que os produtos e serviços com IA oferecem segurança durante todo o seu tempo útil de vida; proibição de práticas algorítmicas injustas, garantindo que IA e ADM sejam usados de forma justa, transparente e responsável; um sistema de supervisão e fiscalização robusto; e regras de responsabilidade para garantir a compensação ao consumidor, em caso de danos decorrentes de produtos e serviços alimentados por IA.
Read full responseResponse to Distance Marketing of Consumer Financial Services - Review of EU rules
24 Jun 2021
We consider that although the DMFSD needs significant updates and amendments the Directive is still relevant. Therefore, we would support the view that the COM should consider primarily option 3) Comprehensive revision of the Directive, and as a secondary choice option 2) Repeal of the Directive but moving the still relevant parts, once modernised, under another horizontal legislation.
We see issues with distant hiring of financial services by consumers that do not have a full understanding of the product and its features, thus the need to maintain safeguards, whether in the DFMSD or through transfer to horizontal legislation.
Read full responseResponse to Ecodesign and energy labelling working plan 2020-2024
1 Jun 2021
DECO welcomes the initiative, we consider that the "Sustainable Product Initiative" is an important initiative on the path to more ecological and circular product. We also believe that is necessary to go beyond the rules on products that use energy and have the broadest possible range of products within the scope of ecodesign, in order to make all products sustainable by-design. Textiles, furniture, packaging are examples of products that be included in the future.
Regarding other groups of products, electronic appliances, such as mobile phones, tablets, and other types of gadgets could be included
We believe that the proposed strategy on prioritisation that will take into account proportionality, including consideration criteria of the Ecodesign Directive (Article 15) and Energy Labelling Regulation (Article 16(2)), such as significant quantities of products, significant environmental impacts and significant potential for improvement of such impacts is adequate.
Read full responseResponse to New EU urban mobility framework
25 May 2021
Os contributos da DECO em anexo
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable Products Initiative
22 Oct 2020
We welcome the European Commission's initiative to extend the scope of the Ecodesign Directive to a wider range of products within the framework of the “European Green Deal”. We appreciate the attention given to the overall life-cycle of the products placed on the EU market, in order to achieve longer product lifetimes, increase circular material use rate, reduce waste and achieve higher recycling rates. Nevertheless, we suggest that the use of secondary raw materials, especially critical ones, present in electronics and ICT, as well as the recyclability rate of the materials should also be considered in the analysis.
Read full responseResponse to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence
10 Sept 2020
Our contributes in attach
Read full responseResponse to Empowering the consumer for the green transition
28 Aug 2020
DECO agrees that is urgently necessary to enable consumers to play a more important role in achieving the sustainable consumption. To make a valuable contribution to reaching the 2050 climate goals, we must all shift our consumption by 2030 at the very latest. Sustainable products and services must become the default choice, which is made easy, affordable, and most attractive for consumers.
We agree with the problem definition as outlined in the roadmap which emphasises the weaknesses of the current system and recommend a combination of Options 1 and 2 as a way forward.
We recommend tackling the lack of information on product environmental characteristics (problem 1) by a targeted amendment of the existing EU consumer legislation (CRD and UCPD).
Many consumers are willing to pay more for products that they could use longer but lack information on product durability and repairability (Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy). To that end, this proposal can make an important contribution to give consumers clear, comparable and credible information about key product characteristics such as on lifetimes and repair. Thereby, the proposal makes an important contribution to create transparency for consumers about value for money.
We recommend tackling the premature obsolescence of consumer goods (problem 2) by:
• targeted amendments of the EU sales law (Directive 2019/771, which will become applicable from 2022), most importantly:
• expanded legal guarantees for longer lasting products, which would raise consumers’ confidence in the market and their willingness to pay more for better quality products
• Further expansion of the reversal of the burden of proof allowing consumers to make an effective use of their legal guarantee rights
• Introducing a direct producer liability – to impose the liability on the party which is in most cases responsible for the product defect and therefore to create an incentive to produce better quality products.
• Targeted amendment to the annex of the UCPD which would explicitly ban practices that deliberately cause the premature obsolescence of products (so called “planned obsolescence”).
Additionally we recommend tackling the proliferation of the misleading green claims on the market (problem 2) and the weak enforcement in this area (problem 3) with a new stand-alone legal instrument (option 2) introducing a scheme requiring a pre-authorisation of green claims and labels, which could be inspired by the one already in place for the health and nutrition claims in food (Regulation 1924/2006).
Read full responseResponse to Environmental claims based on environmental footprint methods
26 Aug 2020
Green claims are an issue that must be addressed by the UE with priority, many traders are taking advantage of consumers’ growing interest in environmental matters because of the climate crisis and are using green claims to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Many claims are not or cannot be substantiated. This triggers confusion and mistrust among consumers and endangers their active and crucial contribution to the transition towards a green economy. DECO considers that option 3: Establish an EU legal framework requiring companies making claims related to the impacts covered by the Environmental Footprint methods to substantiate them via the Environmental Footprint methods is a more adequate approach. A new mechanism should ensure that information to consumers is clearer, more easily comparable, and more credible than today.
Additional we consider that claims which are not useful or cannot be proven should be banned upfront, when too generic or impossible to demonstrate, such as: environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, … We would suggest that a possible list of prohibited green claims shouldn’t be limited, in order to have the possibility to consider a claim as prohibited even if it’s not on the list.
Read full responseResponse to Review of the general product safety directive
17 Aug 2020
Following your request about the revision of General Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC), we have the following comments:
• The General Product Safety Directive protects consumers by ensuring that only safe goods are sold on the EU market. The Directive requires producers to inform consumers of any risks associated with the products they supply and to make sure any dangerous products present on the market can be traced so they can be removed to avoid any risks to consumers;
• The evolution of times, the new technologies, the events in the past few years and the new requirements claim a big revision. This is the first review of the GPSD since 2011. We all agree with “the Directive is nearly 20 years old and as such does not reflect any more the developments in products and markets.”;
• The General Product Safety Directive is relevant to a very wide range of products, including electronics, toys, cosmetics, chemicals, and others. For this reason, this revision has a cross-sectional impact;
• This initiative revises those rules to respond to issues related to new technologies and online sales, to ensure better enforcement of the rules and more efficient and even market surveillance, to simplify the standardization process and to improve the recall of dangerous products in the hands of consumers;
• It’s true there are still too many dangerous products in the EU market, and there are many reasons for this. Many of those products come from outside the European Union, including countries where the standards of safety are lowest. So, we must focus attention on the imported products;
• Another point to note is the articulation of this rules with the sustainability. The European Sustainability Strategy must be respected, without prejudice to the safety
It’s our hope that our comments can make a positive contribution to the revision, which has been shared with us.
Read full responseResponse to A New Consumer Agenda
30 Jul 2020
As a BEUC member, we would like to state that BEUC’s response clearly enhances our concerns. So, we reproduce our european organization’s comments.
Read full responseResponse to Review of the requirements for packaging and feasibility of measures to prevent packaging waste
29 Jul 2020
Os contributos da DECO no documento anexo
Read full responseResponse to Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy
29 Jul 2020
A. Context, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check:
Context:
Concordamos em absoluto com a necessidade de uma revisão da estratégia de mobilidade sustentável e inteligente para garantir um setor de transporte adequado aos novos desafios e a uma economia próspera e moderna.
Como referido no documento em análise, um dos principais objetivos será o de proporcionar uma redução de 90% nos custos relacionados com o setor dos transportes até 2050, para apoiar o objetivo da UE de se tornar o primeiro continente neutro em termos climáticos. A estratégia também deve ter como objetivo fornecer alternativas de transporte mais acessíveis, mais saudáveis e mais limpas. De facto, o setor dos transportes continua a exibir um nível de emissão de gases de efeito de estufa demasiado alto e onde as emissões continuam a crescer, apesar dos esforços para a sua mitigação.
Concordamos ainda que a digitalização, automação, o surgimento da chamada economia compartilhada e colaborativa e as plataformas de mobilidade são tendências disruptivas que desafiam o cenário atual de mobilidade e transporte, além de oferecerem grandes potencialidades de crescimento e melhoria. As redes de 5G, a inteligência artificial e a internet das coisas (IoT), irão certamente também beneficiar os objetivos para este setor.
B. What does the initiative aim to achieve and how:
Refere o documento em análise que, para aumentar a resiliência do sistema de transporte a futuras crises de pandemia e outras, este deve também garantir o bom fluxo transfronteiriço de cidadãos e mercadorias. Com efeito, existem ainda múltiplos obstáculos à livre mobilidade de pessoas, bens e serviços, incluindo a acessibilidade e uma concorrência que potencie a inovação, a qualidade dos serviços e garantir preços acessíveis.
A atual crise do COVID-19 pode ensinar-nos importantes lições no domínio da mobilidade e necessidade de investimento em infraestruturas críticas para um sistema de transporte mais flexível e resiliente, capaz de suportar eventuais crises futuras.
Sem prejuízo disso, a verdade é que o documento elenca um conjunto de princípios e objetivos, sendo, no entanto, manifestamente parco na concretização das medidas ou ações necessárias para se atingirem tais objetivos.
Read full responseResponse to Integration of sustainability risks and factors related to alternative investment fund managers
6 Jul 2020
DECO – the Portuguese Consumer protection Association, welcomes and supports the amendments proposed. These measures are necessary in order to foster the implementation of the Green Deal, the promotion of sustainability, and in particular sustainable finance. It is crucial to have mandatory requirements for firms to assess consumers’ sustainable preferences and goals, and should clearly explain the distinction between financial products that promote environmental or social characteristics and financial products that pursue sustainable investment objectives. Any potential for conflicts of interest need to be avoided or eliminated.
Read full response6 Jul 2020
DECO – the Portuguese Consumer protection Association, welcomes and supports the amendments proposed. These measures are necessary in order to foster the implementation of the Green Deal, the promotion of sustainability, and in particular sustainable finance. It is crucial to have mandatory requirements for firms to assess consumers’ sustainable preferences and goals, and should clearly explain the distinction between financial products that promote environmental or social characteristics and financial products that pursue sustainable investment objectives. Any potential for conflicts of interest need to be avoided or eliminated.
Read full response6 Jul 2020
DECO – the Portuguese Consumer protection Association, welcomes and supports the amendments proposed. These measures are necessary in order to foster the implementation of the Green Deal, the promotion of sustainability, and in particular sustainable finance. It is crucial to have mandatory requirements for firms to take consumers’ sustainable preferences and goals into account in their product governance and oversight arrangements for each insurance product that is intended to be distributed to clients seeking them. This is also relevant when defining target markets for those instruments and products.
Read full response6 Jul 2020
DECO – the Portuguese Consumer protection Association, welcomes and supports the amendments proposed. These measures are necessary in order to foster the implementation of the Green Deal, the promotion of sustainability, and in particular sustainable finance. It is crucial to have mandatory requirements for firms to take consumers’ sustainable preferences and goals into account in their product governance and oversight arrangements for each financial instrument that is intended to be distributed to clients seeking financial instruments. This is also relevant when defining target markets for those instruments and products
Read full responseResponse to Report on the application of the General Data Protection Regulation
29 Apr 2020
I. Comentários na generalidade:
1. Decorre a presente consulta da obrigação da Comissão Europeia de elaborar um relatório sobre a implementação do Regulamento (UE) 2016/679 do Parlamento e do Conselho, de 27 de abril de 2016, relativo à proteção das pessoas singulares no que diz respeito ao tratamento de dados pessoais e à livre circulação desses dados (RGPD).
2. O presente Roadmap visa ainda informar os cidadãos e as partes interessadas sobre o trabalho da Comissão, a fim de fornecer um valioso feedback e potenciar a sua participação efetiva em futuras atividades de consulta. Todos são convidados a fornecer opiniões e a compartilhar informação relevante de que disponham.
II. Comentários na especialidade:
1. A implementação do RGPD em Portugal foi realizada através da Lei n.º 58/2019, de 8 de agosto, que assegura a execução, na ordem jurídica nacional, do Regulamento (UE) 2016/679 do Parlamento e do Conselho, de 27 de abril de 2016, relativo à proteção das pessoas singulares no que diz respeito ao tratamento de dados pessoais e à livre circulação desses dados.
2. Durante o processo de consulta pública, discussão e aprovação do Projeto de Lei, a autoridade de supervisão portuguesa (Comissão Nacional de Proteção de Dados – CNPD), que, estranhamente não participou no processo de redação da lei de execução, suscitou várias reservas e levantou vários problemas com a forma de implementação do RGPD.
3. De seguida, analisaremos os pontos considerados como mais controversos e relevantes da lei de execução do RGPD:
• Dados pessoais de pessoas falecidas:
Não obstante o facto do RGPD estabelecer expressamente a sua não aplicação aos dados pessoais de falecidos, o artigo 17.º estipula que os dados pessoais de falecidos que integrem as categorias especiais de dados pessoais, conforme disposto no Artigo 9.º do RGPD, também são objeto de proteção.
• Obrigatoriedade de nomeação de DPO (Data Protection Officer) por entidades públicas:
No seu artigo 12.º, a lei de execução estabelece uma lista exaustiva de entidades públicas que ficam obrigadas à nomeação de um DPO, em cumprimento do artigo 37.º do RGPD, incluindo, entre outras, as autarquias locais, escolas públicas, institutos públicos e setor empresarial do estado.
• Consentimento de menores:
Estabelece o artigo 16.º que, nos termos do artigo 8.º do RGPD, em relação à oferta de serviços da sociedade da informação, o Projeto de Lei estabelece que para o processamento de dados pessoais de criança com idade superior a 13 anos, não é exigido o consentimento dos respetivos representantes legais.
• Isenção de entidades públicas à aplicação de coimas:
O primeiro projeto da lei de execução continha uma norma que isentava as entidades públicas da aplicação de coimas. Tratou-se de uma norma muito controversa e criticada por todos os stakeholders, com especial relevo para a própria CNPD.
No entanto, na sua versão final, a lei de execução estabeleceu uma solução intermédia, através da aplicação de um período máximo de 3 anos de isenção, a partir do qual passam as entidades públicas a estarem igualmente sujeitas à aplicação de coimas por atos de violação do RGPD.
• Dados de segurança social:
Para efeitos de prazos para reter e guardar dados, a lei de execução estabelece que os dados pessoais relacionados com a previdência e contribuições para fins de aposentadoria, ficam isentos de prazo de retenção de dados. Devem, no entanto, estes dados serem objeto de medidas técnicas e organizacionais adequadas para garantir os direitos dos seus titulares.
Read full responseResponse to Report on the Application and Evaluation of the Postal Services Directive
30 Mar 2020
Our contributes in attach
Read full responseResponse to A new Circular Economy Action Plan
20 Jan 2020
Circular economy – new action plan to increase recycling and reuse of products in the EU
Circular economy is an opportunity to re-think the possibility of a more green and sustainable growth, respecting the planet and the resources it gives us. We think that the logic of producing, manufacturing, selling, using, and disposing of products, has to be re-thinked in a way to reduce our environmental footprint.
We believe, that on one side, there is the necessity to pressure the companies who only take into account the economic efficiency criteria on goods production and on their daily activity. Nowadays, we know that mass production of disposable goods, of a single use or short lifetime, inevitably leads to their replacement or disposal. This should be avoided at all cost.
For a functional circular economy, we need to guarantee, through specific legislation, the safety and quality of recycled materials. It is essential to avoid the use of forbidden chemical products which jeopardize the recycling process itself and pollute in greater scale the environment or can be a risk for public health. For that reason, it is necessary to foment recycling and materials reuse, but before, define strategies and investigate which materials allow the circular economy to work, to assure they qualify and reduce the environmental footprint on the planet.
On the other end, we believe, the consumer has an essential role on the transition from a linear economy to a circular economy which is something we pretend. The responsibility of the consumer consists on taking informed and correct choices. The consumer also needs to be aware of a more sustainable consumption and to the consequences of rampant consumption on an environmental level. Yet, it is essential to provide consumers with valid and realistic information, through training sessions and websites. It is essential to provide consumers with tools which enable them to be informed about reuse and recycling solutions. Digital apps and tools which allow, with easy access, to compare the environmental effect of a specific product, and their disposal solutions and single use products.
We know that the digital and textile industry is daily challenged by rampant consumption due the “fast fashion” and the constant technological evolution, such as electronic devices becoming obsolete. However, this phenomenon does not occur in the package sector more precisely in the plastics sector. Therefore, bulk sale and the research for reusable and recyclable packages should be encouraged.
DECO is concerned with the over-packaging of certain products. That is why in 2018 it launched the #plasticoamais campaign in order to denounce excessive and unjustified plastic in packaging. The objective is to raise awareness among consumers, but also to make a complaint to supermarkets and companies so that they justify the use of these packages and rethink more sustainable solutions. The huge adhesion of consumers to this campaign has shown that consumers are receptive to a change in behavior. We believe that these small steps will lead us to more sustainable consumption.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of the 2011 White Paper on Transport
6 Mar 2019
DECO welcomes the European Commission’s initiative.
Here’s our contributions and some relevant information.
Read full responseResponse to REFIT review of the Motor Insurance Directive
10 Jul 2018
DECO welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on the Review of Directive 2009/103/EC relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicle.
DECO considers that the measures presented will tend to be positive for consumers, especially regarding the standardisation of cross-border measures. The impact of these measures on strengthening the Single Market for civil liability regarding the use of motor vehicle will be important in order to ensure that consumers in the European Union have the same coverage across all Member States. The clarification of the scope of the Directive is crucial for the effective application of the provisions. In addition, it is important to address the innovations in motorised vehicles, such as autonomous ones.
On a more specific assessment of the proposed Directive, we welcome the clarification of “use of vehicle” set out in number 1) of Article 1. Incorporating the judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Vnuk, the Rodrigues de Andrade, and the Torreiro cases is essencial to have a clear view of what the Directive covers, avoiding any such cases to repeat.
The new wording for Article 4 of the previous Directive proposed in number 2) of Article 1 seems to be somewhat inconclusive in that it refers to the “checks are non-discriminatory, necessary and proportionate to achieve the end pursued” and “they form part of a general system of checks on the national territory and do not require the vehicle to stop”.
We would prefer to have a more clear definition of the way those checks are to be carried out in order to avoid interpretation differences. This clarification will enhance a cross-border treatment that is fair and assertive as well as similar across all Member States, so that consumers will be aware of the levels of intrusion allowed in those checks.
On the minimum amounts set out in number 3), we welcome the levelling as these amounts are already in place in Portugal.
We are also pleased with the proposed framework for the protection of injured parties in case of insolvency of an insurance undertaking or lack of cooperation of an insurance undertaking. We will be following closely the transposition in Portugal, contributing to the setting up of the corresponding compensating body.
Finally, we welcome the imposing of the use of the form of the claims history statement in assessing the proposed policyholders, and the addition of fair treatment as set out in the wording “not treat policyholders in a discriminatory manner or surcharge their premiums because of their nationality or solely on the basis of their previous Member State of residence”.
Read full responseResponse to Evaluation of the Consumer Credit Directive
10 Jul 2018
DECO welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Evaluation of the Consumer Credit Directive (Directive 2008/48/EC).
Taking into account the period since the entry into force of the Directive, the areas that we consider that the revision of the Directive should look into are:
Creditworthiness assessment which should follow a similar approach as set out in the Mortgage Credit Directive (MCD);
Provisions to ensure an adequate treatment of borrowers in cases of arrears and foreclosure, also similar to the ones in the MCD;
Application of provisions to the new forms of financing rising from the innovation stemming from Fintech providers – e.g. application to lending based crowdfunding operations;
Effectiveness of the ADR schemes.
On a positive assessment, when transposing the Directive in Portugal, the corresponding Decree-Law (Decreto-Lei n.º 133/2009, of 2nd of June) included provisions on caps on the Annual Percentage Rate (APR). This was a significant measure that contributed to eliminate predatory loans in the Portuguese market. The national supervisor, Banco de Portugal, is in charge of calculating and publishing the maximum APRs trimestrally.
Read full responseResponse to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives
21 Jun 2018
DECO welcomes the Commission proposal on the modernisation and better enforcement of EU consumer law but several aspects need to be improved to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
- Right of withdrawal: It is troubling that the Commission decided to deteriorate the best-known consumer right when no conclusive evidence has been provided. There should be no change of law without evidence. On the contrary, all data suggest a severe lack of compliance by traders, signalling the need to protect, rather than deteriorate, consumers’ right of withdrawal. Hence, the Commission should investigate how to strengthen this important consumer right rather than weakening it.
- Right to remedies: It is positive that consumers can seek redress in case of unfair commercial practices. Besides the right to compensation and the right to contract termination, further remedies should be ensured but not exhaustively defined, such as to ask for specific performance or right of restitution should be envisaged, allowing on the other hand, to include legal traditions and sectoral features. In order to ensure that consumers are equally protected against unfair practices and ensure access to justice, more concrete conditions for the exercise of those remedies should be examined. Also, there should be clear definitions of what those remedies entail. There should also be a standard remedy for non-compliance in the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), for example the consumer is not bound by the contract if the trader does not meet his/her obligations.
- Penalties: We strongly support this approach taken by the Commission. It is important to have truly dissuasive penalties for infringing companies, amounting to a significant percentage of their annual turnover and taking into account the EU wide dimension of the infringement. The Commission should examine the possibility of the highest sanctions, taking the example of the General Data Protection Regulation.
- Payment with data: DECO supports the proposal to apply the provisions on the right of withdrawal and information requirements under the Consumer Rights Directive to situations where consumers provide personal data as a counter-performance if they sign up to a digital service. However, consumers should also be protected if they provide non-personal data in exchange of the service. As a general principle, the scope should be extended to cover all kinds of counter-performance in exchange of goods, services, or digital content products. Also, traders should always inform consumers about the purpose to monetise their data. Finally, similar changes to other Directives are necessary.
- Transparency of platforms: DECO welcomes the proposal, once it means a step forward, but considers that it falls short on what is required. In general, rules on the liability of platforms are missing in the Proposal and even on what regards transparency requirements it is clearly insufficient. Information about ranking criteria is key, but in fact a more transparent system with clear rules is advised. The placement within a listing should only depend on tangible criteria based on performance and quality, and should in no circumstances be conditioned to payment or corporate link criteria.
A self-declaration by the third party is not enough to ensure accurate information on whether any third party is a trader or not.
In our perspective, joint liability for the performance of the contract is completely justified, but at least if the platform fails on information requirements it should be made jointly liable.
Moreover, a standard remedy is missing if traders do not comply with those requirements.
The platform should also be liable if they fail to remove misleading information given by the supplier and notified to the platform, and on guarantees and statements made by the platform operator.
Read full responseResponse to Targeted revision of EU consumer law directives
21 Jun 2018
DECO welcomes the Commission proposal on representative actions. It is crucial to strengthen private enforcement and to give consumers a realistic chance to obtain redress in case of mass damages.
This new instrument could make a real change in areas where mass consumer harm typically occurs.DECO finds it essential that the wide scope of the proposal is preserved including passenger rights, considering, in fact, that an open scope provision should be considered, covering all practices detrimental to consumer rights.The re-evaluation clause in Article 18.2 should be deleted, otherwise consumers facing mass harm situations in this area, e.g. last- minute mass flight cancellations, would be stripped of a possibility to collectively enforce their rights before the courts.
We strongly support obliging Member States to designate consumer associations as qualified entities. Experience in the EU countries that provide for national collective redress procedures, such as Portugal, clearly shows that consumer associations successfully make use of this possibility.At the same time, legitimacy requirements for qualified entities, act as a strong safeguard against any potential abuse.The national experience in the EU also shows that it is not enough if only public bodies are entitled to bring collective actions, as for various reasons they often do not act.
Introducing collective redress actions by qualified entities will finally plug the huge gap in the enforcement of the EU consumer rights landscape. If adopted with some key improvements, it would mean that EU countries will not be helpless in the face of any eventual Dieselgate or similar scandal.
It is key, however, to give Member States wide options on how to accord the new provisions with their own procedural laws.The Directive should allow EU countries to have higher standards and to maintain or introduce other national procedures.In this sense it needs to be clarified, in the proposal, what is meant by the indication, in Article 1.2 that the Directive does not prevent adopting or maintaining in force provisions concerning “other” procedural means to bring actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers at national level.It is crucial that this directive has a minimum harmonization character and thus will not preclude better national rules or force Member States to amend to the disadvantage of consumers their existing collective redress systems.
However, the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the proposal in the instances of complex quantification of the damage of the individual consumer, leaving consumers to have to act individually, might have the effect of seriously undermining the usefulness of the new procedures.Cases with more complex quantification are exactly the types of cases where consumers would not seek redress individually, as it would be economically unreasonable.Even if those consumers could rely on the declaration of the infringement, they would still have to prove both their individual damage and the link between the illegal behavior and the damage – in complex cases both of those elements are likely to require expensive legal, technical or expert opinions, which will be huge barriers for individuals.
Furthermore, we argue that given that collective redress is for consumers, they should, in principle, get compensation, even in small cases.
Another big risk is only allowing to introduce redress actions once the decision concerning the infringement has become final.It can take many years and result in consumers no longer having the product at stake or losing the evidence of the damage. It may incentivize defendants to drag litigation as long as possible, hoping redress actions will become impractical.This could be solved by allowing to introduce claims for the declaration of the infringement and redress at the same time.Any one of them can anyway be appealed, thus preserving full access to justice for both parties.
Read full responseResponse to Review of Regulation on cross-border payments
30 May 2018
DECO welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on the Review of Regulation on cross-border payments.
We welcome the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 as regards certain charges on cross-border payments in the Union and currency conversion charges. In particular, we appreciate the steps taken on currency conversion matters.
On cross-border payments, we would have supported a more ambitious proposal, as set out in Option 4 of the impact assessment, to cover all cross-border payments irrespective of the currency. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the concerns about potential for cross-subsidising of costs by PSPs and the political impact of this option regarding the goal of a Monetary Union. As a result, the proposed approach to follow Option 3 will not affect Portuguese consumers in the country as we are already under the provisions set in Regulation 924/2009. However, this will be relevant for the Portuguese who have immigrated to non-Euro Member States, who will benefit from the possible reduction in costs for cross-border payments in Euros. This will have a material effect in their remittances which make up for a large amount of such transactions.
On currency conversion services, we would like to refer back to our contributions presented by BEUC on the assessment of Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) services, where we mention our concerns on the potential for scam on those services. Therefore, we are very pleased to see that an initial step is being considered to address our concerns. Transparency in charges and exchange rates is key for the provision of better services when it comes to currency conversion. Consumers use these services very often, especially when travelling on vacation. It is common that they use services that are available and convenient, such as at the point of sale or ATMs. Up until now, they were typically left with that service in offer without any information on alternative solutions and a reference rate to compare. This meant they paid which ever charges were presented and take the rate offered. The DCC services were another form of service which relied on fast and convenient offers.
We welcome the provisions set out in this proposal for PSPs to “inform payment service users of the full cost of currency conversion services, and where applicable, those of alternative currency conversion services prior to the initiation of a payment transaction, in order that payment service users can compare alternative currency conversion options and their corresponding costs.” As a result, PSPs “shall disclose the exchange rate applied, the foreign exchange reference rate used and the total amount of all charges applicable to the conversion of the payment transaction.”
We are waiting to see how the EBA will put these requirements in practice through the RTS. We believe that there might be a technical issue in making this happen, in particular for point of sales machines. The devices used are typically small and have a limited space in their screens. This might translate into a challenge for the EBA in developing their RTS.
We recommend that there should be an additional mandatory requirement presenting the information of an official reference rate, such as the ECB foreign exchange reference rates. This would increase transparency and inform the users of what is the actual reference rate for the day allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of the cost of using that service.
Read full response12 Jan 2018
Good morning,
In relation to the setting out of rules for the origin in relation to the points (i) “EU”, “non-EU” or "EU and non-EU" and (iv) Member State(s) or third country(ies), although we agree with them we are of opinion that, for consumers it will always be better to define the exact origin. However this information, which is in conformity with what is required also for other products, already gives consumer some idea of the origin.
We would like however if possible for it to be mentioned that the more specific the better for consumers best comprehension. Thus could these points appear at the end and not beginning?
Best regards
Read full responseResponse to A New Deal for Consumers – revision of the Injunctions Directive
27 Nov 2017
We clearly support option 4 “A target revision of the Injunctions Directive + consumer collective redress”, which clearly enhances consumer protection in case of an unfair contract term or an unfair commercial practice. Nowadays, Injunctions have lost some of its effect given that, stopping the infringement does not prevent the consumer from suffering several damages. So, sometimes, the decision to stop the infringement is redundant for the consumer. As an example, in 2007, the portuguese MP brought into action an injunction against several banks for having a contractual term that would permit the roundup of the credit rate for mortgage credit contracts, given that it created an unjustified and disproportionate imbalance between the consumer and the credit institution. The decision, years later, was positive for consumers and the contract term was considered unfair. However, given that it was merely an injunction all consumers had to go again into court against each bank to ask for the reimbursement of the illegal payments made. This example illustrates the importance of guaranteeing the parallel existence of a collective redress mechanism in the Injunction Directive.
There are, however, some procedural elements that should be clarified within this Directive.
• Once the injunction orders have been considered only binding on the trader that was demanded in the court decision, there is a clear problem of effectiveness and a multiplication of judicial proceedings involving similar standard contract terms. DECO has recently defended a mixed administrative/judicial mechanism, under which, after a final court decision, and its public registry, the administrative authority would be a watch dog for other similar practices and would have the power to unilaterally cease and sanction this practice. So, a register of unlawful acts prohibit by injunction orders and the possibility to sanction traders committing the same acts should also be considered. Furthermore, the suspension of limitation period for consumer damages actions during ongoing injunction procedures should be granted.
• There is no valid reason to restrict the impact of the Directive to “classic” consumer protection measures, listed in the actual annex. Multiple Member States have extended the scope of the injunction or compensation actions to data protection, health, transport and financial services, or even wider – to the breaches of contracts. So the Directive should be extended to all consumer law, covering all the matters referred to in article 169º of the TFEU – this already happens in Portugal, given that the injunction system can be applied to all consumer issues.
• If the court/authority invites the parties to negotiate the amicable settlement, there should be safeguards against traders using this time to hide evidence or assets. Interim measures such as freezing of financial assets should be possible, ant the time for negotiations should be limited.
• Establishing not only the maximum length of the procedure, but also specific and accelerated procedures for urgent cases is absolutely key. Also, to consider is the possibility, given now under the portuguese law, that whenever an interim measure is decided, the judge may, by the claimant’s request, provide for a final decision, without the need to bring into the court the main claim. DECO considers that an enforcement procedure should be considered in all the injunctions regime.
• The issue of funding is crucial. Even when consumer organizations win the case, often they are not able to recover all the costs with the action, so without appropriate funding only a very limited number of cases can be taken. Bearing in mind the public interest of injunctions and collected redress schemes, an adaptation of the “loser pays” prince is necessary.
• National Consumer Associations should always be considered automatically as qual
Read full response