Modernisation of consumer law through the harmonisation of contracts for the sale of goods
On 31 March 2022, a legislative Act that makes considerable changes to the sale of consumer goods was published in the Belgian State Gazette. This law transposes into Belgian legislation two European directives: EU Directive 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services and EU Directive 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods. This blog focuses on the transposition of the latter and highlights its most important changes.
Context
Taking into account the development of the digital market, EU Directive 2019/771 of 20 May 2019 provides for the enhanced harmonisation of certain aspects relating to contracts for the sale of goods. It concerns a maximum harmonisation. Of course, this does not prevent the seller from offering the consumer contractual arrangements that go beyond the protection provided for by law.
The Act concerns the sale of consumer goods. It amends Articles 1649bis to 1649octies of the old Civil Code. While Directive 2019/771 should have been transposed into national law by 1 July 2021 and the measures necessary to comply with the Directive should have applied since 1 January 2022, the Belgian legislator did not meet these deadlines. The new Belgian provisions will apply to sales concluded after 1 June 2022.
The highlights of these new provisions
A first important change is that the material scope has been extended. Consumer goods do not only cover any tangible movable item but also goods with digital elements. An example of the latter would be goods with “embedded software” such as a smartphone with a pre-installed operating software. Consumer goods do not include the sale of digital content and digital services. In case of any doubt about the correct qualification, the provisions on the sale of consumer goods prevail.
A second change concerns the notion of “conformity”. The Act includes subjective as well as objective requirements for conformity. Subjective requirements relate, amongst other things, to the specific characteristics and purposes for which the consumer will use the goods and of which he or she has informed the seller. Objective requirements are, for example, the purposes for which goods of the same type are used.
Third, a specific subjective requirement is that, for goods with digital elements, the seller has an obligation to provide the consumer with updates. This can include security or other technical updates for keeping the goods in conformity during a period of time that can be reasonably expected by the consumer (i.e. for how long will the consumer reasonably use the goods). This will depend on the circumstances and nature of the goods and the contract.
A fourth important modification concerns the seller’s liability for the lack of conformity. As before, the seller is liable for any defects that exist at the time of a good’s delivery and that become apparent within two years after that delivery. However, the burden of proof for demonstrating a defect has been simplified. The presumption of non-conformity is extended from 6 months to 2 years from the date of delivery. Thus, during this period, the consumer does not have to deliver proof of the defect. But the consumer still has the obligation to notify such a defect within 2 months of first noticing it. The seller may choose to give the consumer a longer period.
Finally, the modalities around the exercise of remedies and the invocation of commercial guarantees by consumers have been further elaborated. Furthermore, infringements of the provisions can from now be subject to audits by the Economic Inspection Service and can be penalised in accordance with the provisions of Book XV of the Economic Code.
Conclusion
The new provisions on the sale of consumer goods ensure a higher level of consumer protection. The new legislation now explicitly encompasses goods with digital elements and strengthens the legal guarantee by extending the presumption of lack of conformity from 6 months to two years after delivery.
If you would like any further information about this legal development, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Written by
Recommended articles
100 Deals, Zero Rejections: What Belgium’s FDI Report for 2024-2025 Reveals
The Belgian Interfederal Screening Commission (ISC) has released its Annual Report on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Screening 2024–2025, providing valuable insights into how the country has tried between July 2024 and June 2025 to navigate the fine line between remaining an open economy and safeguarding its strategic interests. Almost no corrective measures During this second […]
Read onCombination therapies in Belgium: how to collaborate without breaching competition law
As the landscape of modern medicine evolves, combination therapies—those that use two or more distinct medicines, often from different companies—are becoming increasingly vital, especially in treating complex diseases like cancer. These therapies promise improved clinical outcomes through synergistic mechanisms of action. However, the reimbursement process for such therapies presents significant regulatory and legal challenges, particularly […]
Read onSports federations again under Belgian Competition Authority scrutiny in two interim measures proceedings
The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has recently ruled on two requests for interim measures against sports federations. Both decisions again highlight that competition rules apply to sports federations and show that interim measures procedures before the BCA can be a powerful tool to change market behaviour before a decision on the merits is taken, even if no interim measures are imposed.
Read on