Activities of Richard SULÍK related to 2017/2066(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Action Plan on Retail Financial Services
Amendments (11)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes the fact that the Action Plan aims to tackle a number of important issues and that in some of the areas it sets out specific actions to be taken by the Commission, with a clear timetable; regrets, however, that in some of the identified areas, the proposals on how to solve the identified problems remain rather vague;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2a (new)
Paragraph 2a (new)
2 a. Appreciates, that before taking any further action in certain areas, the Commission proposes to carry out an in- depth assessment, including the impact of the after-crisis legislation;Stresses out that every new proposal including impact assessments shall be based on proper and accurate data;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2b (new)
Paragraph 2b (new)
2 b. Agrees with the Commission that a comprehensive legal framework alone is not sufficient and effective enforcement is crucial; notes that implementation and particularly implementation of the post- crisis legislation, which impact might be visible after few years, is an important step for several proposed actions;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2c (new)
Paragraph 2c (new)
2 c. Notes that the Action Plan should be part of a longer-term vision for financial retail services in order to provide all stakeholders, including consumers and the financial market with transparency and certainty;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Underlines that consumers need to be able to choose the best rates and be aware of fees and other associated costs when making transactions or payments abroad, including when using dynamic currency conversion (DCC); asks the Commission to require that the value of a transaction be dstrictly enforce the current related legisplayed both in local currency and in thetion in order for consumer’s home currency at the time of the transaction, andto identify the most suitable option, to require that rates offered by different financial service providers be displayed in a transparent manner, and calls for a neutral reference rate provided by a non-business actorto monitor non transparent practices which should be completely banned in the Union; Providers of DCC should duly inform their clients of the real cost the transaction will entail;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Welcomes the review and cutback of national trade barriers but cautions that this should not result in lower consumer protection standards with further consideration for the level playing field to ensure that consumers are not put at risk and that financial stability is maintained, irrespective of the service provider;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4a (new)
Paragraph 4a (new)
4 a. Notes that in order to facilitate cross-border activities for effective single market it is crucial to identify the existing EU and national obstacles and the remaining barriers that impact consumers and businesses;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Reiterates its view that online comparison tools can substanpartially improve comparability between various financial products and help consumers to make an informed decision; asks the Commission, should compare only products and services comparable across jurisdictions and should focus not only on the prices of products but also on their quality; asks the Commission to work first with stakeholders to enhance the quality and reliability of financial services comparison websites existing nationally before considering to monitor the rollout and uptake of the stakeholders’' initiative ‘'Key principles for comparison tools’', including voluntary certification schemes, and to evaluate the need for compulsory certification;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Calls on the Commission to maintain a fair competitive environment which encourages innovation, offers regulatory flexibility for its testing, while ensuring a high level of consumer protection and security;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Notes that the contractual freedom of the financial institutions to offer their services cross-border must be respected as service providers should retain the ability to decide which customer segments and markets are appropriate as part of their business model;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses the potential of e-signature and e-identification for easier transactions; underlines the importance of system security to combat potential identity theft and the need for financial non-discriminto take into consideration of persons unable or unwilling to use e- signature; Promotes interoperability of cross-border e-identification in the financial services sector and ensure a level playing field across Member States (and possibly beyond in EEA countries and Switzerland); Stresses that any initiative taken should be technologically- neutral.