11 Amendments of Joachim SCHUSTER related to 2022/0341(COD)
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 established technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro. Instant credit transfers in euro are a relatively new category of credit transfers in euro which emerged on the market only after the adoption of that Regulation. It is therefore necessary to provide for specific requirements for instant credit transfers in euro, in addition to the general requirements applicable to all credit transfers. In that context - to make instant payments more accessible - the Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council is also amended through this Regulation to ensure that instant payments are also available as basic features in a payment account.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) A number of national regulatory solutions have already been adopted or proposed to increase the uptake of instant credit transfers in euro, including by strengthening PSUs’ protection from sending funds to an unintended payee or specifying the process of compliance with obligations flowing from Union sanctions. TGiven the absence of common EU-wide rules, those national regulatory solutions pose a risk of fragmentation of the internal market, thus increasing the compliance costs due to different sets of national regulatory requirements, and making the execution of cross-border instant credit transfers more difficult.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) Ensuring that all PSUs in the Union are able to place payment orders for and receive instant credit transfers in euro is a precondition for an increased uptake of such transactions. Currently, at least one third of PSPs in the Union do not offer instant credit transfers in euro. Moreover, the rate at which PSPs have been adding instant credit transfers to their services has been, over the last few years, too slow, which hinders further integration of the Union’s internal payments market, undermining the creation of a strategic autonomy of the EU in the payments sector. Therefore, PSPs should be required to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfers in euro.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) It would not be proportionate to impose on payment institutions and electronic money institutions an obligation to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfers in euro, because those instn order to allow PSPs such as e- money and payment institutions to be able to access the necessary infrastructure and play their role in facilituations cannot be admitted as participants in a payment system designated in accordance wing the uptake of instant payments in the EU, the Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council36 . Those institutions may therefore experience difficulties in accessing the infrastructure necessary to execute instant credit transfers. It is therefore appropriate to exclude payment institutions and electronic money institutions from the obligation to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfers in euroshould be amended in the near future in order for them to be included in the scope of this Regulation. __________________ 36 Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 45).
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Security of instant credit transfers in euro is fundamental for increasing PSUs’ confidence in such services and ensuring their use. Payers intending to send a credit transfer to a given payee may, as a result of fraud or error, provide a payment account identifier which does not correspond to an account held by that payee. Under Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council37 , the only determinant of the correct execution of the transaction with respect to the payee is the unique identifier, and PSPs are not required to verify the name of the payee. In the case of instant credit transfers, there is not enough time for the payer to realise the occurrence of a fraud or error and to try to recover the funds before they are credited to the payee’s account. PSPs should therefore, without charging the PSUs any additional charges or fees, verify whether there is any discrepancy between the unique identifier of the payee and the name of the payee provided by the payer, and notify the payer. In case any discrepancies are detected, the payer should be notified before placing a payment order for an instant credit transfer in euro about any such discrepancies detected. To avoid undue frictions or delays in the processing of the transaction instantly, the payer’s PSP should provide such notification within no more than a few seconds from the moment the payer provided the payee information. To allow the payer to decide whether to proceed with the intended transaction, the payer’s PSP should provide such notification before the payer authorises the transaction. However, taking into account the comfort of the PSU and the costs for the PSP, such a check of a match between the unique identifier of the payee and the name of the payee can be avoided if it had been already conducted within the last three months and the payee is saved amongst the trusted beneficiaries of the payer. __________________ 37 Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Some attributes of the name of the payee to whose account the payer wishes to make an instant credit transfer may increase the likelihood of a discrepancy being detected by the PSP, including the presence of diacritics or different possible transliterations of names in different alphabets, differences between habitually used names and names indicated on formal identification documents in case of natural persons, or differences between commercial and legal names in case of legal persons. To avoid undue frictions in the processing of instant credit transfers in euro and facilitate the payer’s decision on whether to proceed with the intended transaction, PSPs should indicate the degree of such discrepancy, including by indicating in the notification that there is ‘no match’ or ‘close match’. Both - the commercial name and the legal name of a trader - should be identified as a match.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Authorising a payment transaction where the PSP has detected a discrepancy and has notified that discrepancy to the PSU can result in the funds being transferred to an unintended payee. In such cases, PSPs should not be held liable for the execution of the transaction to an unintended payee, as laid down in Article 88 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366. PSPs should inform PSUs about the implications for PSP liability and PSU refunds rights of their choice to ignore the notified discrepancy. PSUs should be able to opt out from using that service at any time during their contractual relationship with the PSP. After opting out, PSUs should be able to opt in to again avail of the service. PSPs should inform PSUs about the possibility to opt out from the service and about the implications for PSP liability and PSU refunds rights of their choice to ignore the notified discrepancy.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 of the European Parliament and of the Council38 , charges applied by a PSP located in a Member State whose currency is not the euro in respect of cross-border credit transfers in euro are to be the same as charges applied by that PSP in respect of national credit transfers in the national currency of that Member State. In situations where such a PSP applies higher charges for national instant credit transfers in the national currency than for national non-instant credit transfers in the national currency, and therefore also higher charges than for cross-border non-instant credit transfers in euro, the level of charges that such a PSP would be required to apply under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 in respect of cross-border instant credit transfers in euro would be higher than charges for cross-border non- instant credit transfers in euro. In such situations, to avoid conflicting requirements and taking into account the key objective of steering PSUs towards instant credit transfers in euro, it is appropriate to require that charges applied to payers and payees for cross-border instant credit transfers in euro do not exceed the charges applied for cross-border non-instant credit transfers in euro. Member States, whose currency is not euro, should be able to apply this Regulation internally in their own, non- euro currency, accordingly. __________________ 38 Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on cross-border payments in the Union (OJ L 274, 30.7.2021, p. 20).
Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 260/2012
Article 5c – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1a (new)
Article 5c – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1a (new)
This check of a match between the unique identifier of the payee and the name of the payee can be avoided if it had been already conducted within the last three months and the payee is saved amongst the trusted beneficiaries of the payer.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Regulation (EU) No 260/2012
Article 5c – paragraph 6a (new)
Article 5c – paragraph 6a (new)
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new)