EU Parliament adopts Right to Repair law with broad support

The European Parliament endorsed a beefed-up ‘right to repair’ law with a large majority on Tuesday (21 November), setting its position before negotiations with the Council representing the 27 EU countries.

At the Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, the right to repair was adopted with 590 votes in favour.

The legislative file, first presented by the EU Commission in March, aims to support the European Green Deal targets by increasing incentives for a circular economy, such as making repair a more attractive option than replacement for consumers.

Inter-institutional negotiations with the Council are set to start on 7 December.

“I was indeed very surprised about the broad majority that was given by the plenary to this report,” said René Repasi, the centre-left lawmaker who spearheaded the file.

In October, the leading Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) committee adopted its position on the Right to Repair directive.

Apart from ensuring favourable conditions for an independent repair market and preventing manufacturers from undermining repairs as an attractive choice, the IMCO position also extended the product category for a right-to-repair to bicycles.

“We do need this right to repair. What we are currently doing is simply not sustainable. We are living in a market economy where after two years, products have to be replaced, and we must lead Europe to a paradigm shift in that regard,” Repasi said.

Sunčana Glavak (EPP), the rapporteur for the opinion of the ENVI (Environment, Public Health and Food Safety) Committee, added it was “necessary to strengthen the repair culture through awareness raising campaigns, above all at the national level”.

“With this proposal, I will conclude that we [ENVI] support the rights of consumers as well as small and medium-sized enterprises and contribute to the development of the repair market,” Glavak said.

Parliament’s position

To incentivise the choice for repair, the Parliament introduced an additional one-year guarantee period on the repaired goods, “once the minimum guarantee period has elapsed”, Repasi explained, as well as the possibility for a replacement product during repair if the repair takes too long.

Moreover, the Parliament intends to create a rule that market authorities can intervene to lower prices for spare parts to a realistic price level.

“Manufacturers must also be obliged to provide spare parts and repair information at fair prices. The European Parliament has recognised this correctly,” Holger Schwannecke, secretary general of the German Confederation of Skilled Crafts and Small Businesses, said.

He warned that customer claims against vendors and manufacturers must not result in craftspeople being held liable for third-party repairs.

To ensure that operating systems of smartphones continue to work after repair by an independent repairer, the Parliament aims to ban phone makers’ practice of running a closed system that limits access to alternative repair services.

“This opening up of the market marks the end of the unchallenged power of large corporations such as Apple,” IMCO chair and shadow rapporteur Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA) commented.

Asked for a comment, Apple referred to its paper ‘Expanding Access to Service and Repairs for Apple Devices’, highlighting that customers should have access to safe and reliable service and repairs that do not compromise their security, their privacy, or the functionality of their device.

The paper also reflects the idea that repair is more likely to be done correctly when it is performed by skilled, trained professionals, using genuine Apple parts engineered for quality and safety, and tools designed for the repair.

To provide consumers with a real choice, and ensure that repair is affordable, the Parliament’s position wants to oblige member states to introduce financial incentives for citizens to go for repair.

Negotiations with the Council

While the Council has not yet adopted its general approach, Repasi predicted that the article on the hierarchy of remedies within the legal guarantee period will be contentious in negotiations with the Council.

“If the Council actually goes through with deleting the hierarchy, then we need to expand the list of incentives for repair meaningfully,” Repasi added.

Another point of contention could be the ‘concept of significant inconvenience’, allowing a consumer to opt for a new replacement product when repair might be cheaper but takes longer.

Unlike the Commission’s proposal, the Parliament’s position also wants to make the mandatory repair form voluntary.

“Small-scale repair might then end up with repairers actually not wanting to have any repair done, because of the bureaucracy behind managing such a form,” Repasi explained.

“If there is no legal requirement for consumers to change their behaviour, then we must have a meaningful set of incentives,” he added.

[Edited by Luca Bertuzzi/Zoran Radosavljevic]

Read more with EURACTIV