In recent years consumer law has come more and more into the focus of legislation within the EU. One of the EU’s key objectives, completing the final stage of the internal market, is to place consumer rights in the centre of it. Following the adaption of various consumer law measures for some decades, the EU has undertaken a thorough review of its consumer acquis. After years of consultations, the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/ EU, which was supposed to set new standards (...) of consumer protection, came into force and will have to be implemented by the Member States by 13 December, 2013. Renouncing its principal practice of minimum harmonisation in the area of consumer law, i.e. allowing Member States on the basis of Directives to adopt more protective rules, the EU legislator now turned to a targeted full harmonisation approach by means of the Consumer Rights Directive, aiming at increasing the consumer protection across the EU by bringing together the currently distinct laws for distance selling and off-premises contracts as well as other types of consumer contracts in a single instrument. The article briefly introduces the background of the Directive and discusses the shift in means of harmonisation concepts. Then, it analyses the scope, concepts and content of the Directive, which mainly brings considerable reforms in the areas of information requirements and the right of withdrawal. Taking into account the Directive’s improvements and shortcomings, conclusions are drawn that further harmonisation and a uniform and universally applicable set of European consumer rights are needed. (shrink)

Fifty years ago, on 12 September, 1963, the association agreement between the European Economic Community (EEC) and Turkey was signed in Ankara. However, in contrast to many other countries who applied later on, Turkey has not yet become a member of the EU. Nevertheless, Turkey’s candidacy to join the EU is still one of the most considerable and controversial topics within the European political arena. Within the accession negotiations, apart from human rights and the Kurdish and the Cypriot issues, one (...) of the greatest challenges to Turkey’s successful candidacy is the issue of respect for and protection of minorities. It might indeed represent an unsolvable problem, which will ultimately block Turkey joining the EU. Neither the EU nor Turkey has really come to terms or dealt with what the EU sees as an “unsatisfactory” protection of minorities in Turkey. What lies at the root of this disagreement is what the term “minority” actually means. Due to Turkey’s own nation state concept as being a united and undivided country and to the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne signed in 1923, which defined Turkey as a nation, the country only recognises non-Muslim minorities. Moreover, contrary to the wording of the minority protection clauses in the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey restricts its recognition of non-Muslim minorities only to the Greek, Armenian and Jewish religious populations. Although being a non-Muslim group as well, the Assyrians are excluded from the Turkish concept of minorities and, therefore, also from minority protection. In contrast to that, the EU’s concept of minority includes ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, which means that according to the EU’s concept of minorities, also ethnic minorities like the Kurds, linguistic minorities like the Laz and religious minorities like the Alevis are included in the term “minority” and, therefore, these minorities should benefit from specific minority protection rights. To find a common basis for discussing the unsatisfactory issue of minority rights in Turkey, the concept of “ethnic groups” is introduced by the author as the most promising approach to deal with this unreconciled conceptual difference. According to this concept, ethnic groups could form a sub-identity of Turkishness and help build a legal basis to the treatment of minority groups founded on human rights, which would be compatible with both Turkish and EU Law. (shrink)