The draft law on market surveillance must be modified so that it is efficient, said experts of the Center for the Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC), who analyzed the bill in terms of the observance of human rights.
In a news conference at IPN, expert Radu Jigau said such a bill is necessary, but it must be improved. The EU lays emphasis on consumer protection and, if we want to meet these standards, we must have a protected and developed market.
The expert noted that the bill provides for the creation of a coordination council on consumer protection and market surveillance. An analysis, assessment and coordination institution cannot work without incurring costs for areas, supplies, remuneration of personnel etc. However, the bill author (the Ministry of Economy) does not specify the economic and financial costs and how they will be covered.
The bill also stipulates that an economic entity that during a year committed repeatedly a similar violation will be penalized harsher. Radu Jigau said a penalty must be based on clear and objective criteria, while those who impose it should not interpret them differently. The notion ‘similar violation’ is not clearly defined.
The expert also pointed to other vulnerabilities and ambiguous regulations that allow interpretation. The bill obliges the economic entity to present information about how the prescriptions of the market surveillance authority were fulfilled. If the information is insufficient, the authority will carry out inspections. The CAPC expert recommends clearly defining the criteria determining if the presented information is sufficient or insufficient so as to exclude the discretionary character of the norm.
Another proposal of the Ministry of Education is to authorize the market surveillance authority to ask for information about the compliance of products and the issued and cancelled compliance certificates from compliance assessment bodies. The answer is to be provided the same day the application is submitted. The expert said this provision should be removed as the assessment bodies may be unable to furnish information the same day it is requested. For example, if the information is asked at 4pm, it’s evident that it will be imposable to provide it within an hour, by the end of the working program.
The bill was assessed within the project “Harmonization of the legislation with the international human rights standards” that is supported financially by the Civil Rights Defenders of Sweden.
