Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | ECON | TERHO Sampo ( EFD) | ESSAYAH Sari ( PPE), PADAR Ivari ( S&D), IN 'T VELD Sophia ( ALDE), EICKHOUT Bas ( Verts/ALE), FOX Ashley ( ECR) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | ||
Committee Opinion | IMCO | COFFERATI Sergio Gaetano ( S&D) | Matteo SALVINI ( ENF) |
Committee Opinion | INTA | ||
Committee Opinion | ITRE |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Green Paper ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’.
Members note that the European market for card, internet and mobile payments is at present still fragmented across national borders and only a few big players are able to get acceptance by merchants and to operate on a cross-border basis. Whilst welcoming the Green Paper and fully agreeing with the listed aims, they note that the latter does not tackle the costs and societal impacts of cash or cheque payments in comparison with card, internet and mobile payments, thus preventing a comparative analysis of the economic and welfare costs and societal impacts of payments by cash or cheque.
Parliament makes the following principal recommendations:
The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, Parliament recognises that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive.
Parliament points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance.
Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent , pointing out that those that do not use expensive payment methods still cover their costs. They ask the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They recall that all Europeans should have access to basic banking services and stress that actions towards common technical standards shall be taken in the light of the importance, effectiveness and sufficiency of the standards currently in place in Europe.
Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards , on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants.
Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery.
The resolution underlines that, given the fast-growing but, at present, immature phase of market development for electronic and mobile payments, imposing mandatory standards in these key areas for the enhancement of the digital single market in Europe would entail the risk of negative effects for innovation, competition and market growth .
In Members’ opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EU’s key economic partners.
Governance: the resolution calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance , covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation.
Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliament’s previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision- making and standard-setting process.
Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive , Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments.
Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, Parliament points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options. Parliament notes that after a transitional period, a person coming from any Member State should have his or her SEPA-compatible payment card accepted at every payment terminal in the SEPA, and that the payment should be safely routed. Noting further that this requirement might imply that MIFs need to be regulated to fall under a threshold, Parliament insists that this should not result in an increase of MIFs in any Member State but rather to a decrease and, perhaps, a reduction towards zero at some later stage.
Parliament considers that MIFs should be regulated at the European level, with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates. Recalling that Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 on credit transfers and direct debits in euros provides that no per-transaction MIF can be applied after 1 February 2017, the resolution calls for the same approach for card payments .
Surcharging: Parliament stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States.
Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge.
Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States , and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer.
Parliament is generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. It notes that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yes–no') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sampo TERHO (EFD, FI) on the Green Paper ‘ Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments ’ .
Members commend the Commission for providing the Green Paper, find the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant, and fully agree with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust.
The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows:
The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, the committee recognises that s elf-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive.
The report points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance.
Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent . They therefore call upon the Commission also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They stress that actions towards common technical standards shall be taken in the light of the importance, effectiveness and sufficiency of the standards currently in place in Europe.
Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards , on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants.
Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery.
The report underlines that, given the fast-growing but, at present, immature phase of market development for electronic and mobile payments, imposing mandatory standards in these key areas for the enhancement of the digital single market in Europe would entail the risk of negative effects for innovation, competition and market growth .
In Members’ opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EU’s key economic partners.
Governance: the report calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance , covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation.
Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliament’s previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process.
Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive , Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments.
Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, the report points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options.
The report favours MIFs being regulated at the European level , with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates.
Surcharging: the report stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States.
Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge.
Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States , and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer.
They are generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. They note that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yes – no') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights.
CONTENT: to launch a consultation with a view to facilitating secure, efficient, competitive and innovative electronic payments by card, internet and mobile phones (Green Paper).
BACKGROUND: the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is based on the premise that there should be no distinction between cross-border and domestic electronic retail payments in euro across the EU. The SEPA project covers the key retail payment instruments: credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards. From this basis, SEPA should be a springboard to creating a competitive and innovative European payments market in two ways.
The first concerns the ever-growing proportion of on-line or internet payments (e-payments) and mobile payments (m-payments) . Above all, the mass take-up of smart phones is changing the payments landscape and is leading to new payment applications, for example electronic purses, replacing wallets and physical cards, or virtual public transport tickets stored in a mobile phone. Here, the pan-European SEPA payment instruments can provide the basis for more integrated and secure payment innovations. Secondly, the existing standards and rules developed under SEPA could be re-applied to payment instruments in non-euro currencies, thereby taking the boundaries of a Single Market for payments beyond euro-denominated transactions.
The euro retail payments market is one of the largest in the world and involves millions of companies and hundreds of millions of citizens. According to statistics from the European Central Bank (ECB), in 2009 almost 58 billion retail payment transactions were made in the euro area alone. Annual growth rates of the e-commerce market size over the next five years are projected at around 10 %. Average spending per capita at EU level is forecast to rise from EUR 483 in 2009 to EUR 601 in 2014 .
The economic benefits of integrating this market are substantial. For example, studies suggest that full migration to SEPA for credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards could yield direct and indirect benefits of more than EUR 300 billion over a six-year period . The current degree of payment integration at European level varies markedly between the various payment instruments (such as credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards) and channels (e- or mpayments) used to make a payment.
Payment cards are the most common and frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail payments. In terms of volume (number of transactions), card payments represented a third of all retail payments in 2009. However, integration of the European payment card market is far from complete and tangible results are still limited. The lack of a coherent and comprehensive (self-) regulatory framework currently leads to a European e-payments environment that is largely fragmented along national borders with a small number of successful domestic e-payment schemes and a limited number of large international players from outside Europe. Market penetration of m-payments in the EU still has considerable unrealised potential, in comparison, for example, to the Asia/Pacific region; the largest and most promising global m-payment initiatives are currently launched outside Europe.
For this vision to become reality for card, e- and m-payments, a number of additional issues need to be addressed, such as security, freedom of choice, unhindered technical and business innovation, standardisation of the various components and interoperability.
CONTENT: this Green Paper assesses the current landscape of card, internet and mobile payments in Europe, identifies the gaps between the current situation and the vision of a fully integrated payments market and the barriers which have created these gaps.
The objective of the Green Paper is to launch a broad-scale consultation process with stakeholders to validate or contribute to the Commission’s analysis and to help identify the right way to improve market integration.
The main issues dealt with in the Green Paper are as follows:
(1) Market access and market entry across borders : a number of separate issues can be identified in this context. It is important to note that these issues, while historically all stemming from commercial practices for payment cards, either are applied in the same form for e- and m-payments or at least have significant spill-over effects which affect e- and m-payments indirectly, for example when an e- or m-payment is made through the use of a payment card.
The proposal calls for:
the need to clarify the legal situation as regards the Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs); the obstacles to development of cross border acquiring which refers to a situation in which a merchant uses the services of an acquiring PSP established in another country; the potential benefits and/or drawbacks of co-badging, a system which combines different payment brands on the same card or device; the possibility to separate schemes and card payment processing; the need to ensure compliance with the SEPA Cards Framework (SCF); the need to establish objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance.
(2) Transparent and cost-effective pricing of payment services : the real cost of these payment services is often opaque, both for consumers and for merchants, which leads to higher payment costs in the EU economy. The lack of transparency mostly applies to the cards market, but links between cards, e- and m-payments have implications for all these payment methods. Furthermore, increased transparency in pricing should be seen as a way to reduce the costs of payment transactions for all parties involved and ultimately optimise costs across the EU for the benefit of payment service users. Another issue related to the pricing of payment services concerns micro-payments, i.e. low-value payments, which by their nature are often made by card, internet or mobile payments. Payment fees are often perceived as excessive, both by consumers and merchants.
(3) Technical standardisation : European payment users (companies, consumers, merchants) will fully benefit from competition, freedom of choice and more efficient payment operations if cross-border interoperability is achieved. This applies to all electronic payments and involves multiple actors in the payment process, depending on the payment method. However, standardisation of the various components (e.g. protocols, interfaces, applications, services) needs to be carried out thoroughly23 in order to minimise the risk of foreclosure of potential competitors or innovation.
The question is asked as to whether the use of common standards for card payments would be beneficial and if the current governance arrangements are sufficient to coordinate, drive and ensure the adoption and implementation of common standards for card payments within a reasonable timeframe.
(4) Interoperability between service providers : c ooperation is a key requirement in a network industry such as payments, as any payment requires an agreement between the payer’s payment service provider and the payee’s payment service provider. To ensure that any payment can reach any beneficiary without detriment to the actors and intermediaries involved, a higher level of coordination is desirable in the form of full interoperability.
In line with the Commission’s proposal for credit transfers and direct debits , the principle of interoperability could be applied in the cards market, in addition to addressing the obstacles
mentioned above, particularly for the choice of the acquirer and the commercial rules.
(5) Payments security and data protection : t he security of retail payments is a crucial prerequisite for payment users and merchants alike. The public consultation on the future of e-commerce in the internal market confirmed this and identified payments security as one of the key hurdles preventing the widespread adoption of electronic commerce.
The continuous replacement of signature-based cards (equipped with a magnetic stripe for card reading) by ‘Chip and PIN’ (EMV-compliant) cards has helped reduce fraud significantly at the point-of-sale at European level. While this helped to drive down card fraud in physical payment transactions, fraudulent activity is now increasingly moving to remote card transactions, in particular to payments over the internet .
A second important issue in this field is data protection. All payment means referred to in this document imply the processing of personal data and the use of electronic communication networks. It is crucial that authentication mechanisms for payment transactions are designed from the outset to include the necessary measures to ensure compliance with data protection requirements.
(6) Governance : until now, SEPA has been predominantly run as a self-regulatory project, set up and managed by the European banking industry through the EPC, with the strong support of the ECB and the Commission. With the adoption of the Regulation establishing technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros a more active involvement of the EU institutions in the SEPA governance may be useful . In this context, a more prominent role for the legislative and regulatory oversight through, for example, the ECB, the Commission or the European Banking Authority (EBA) could be considered.
In areas such as creating a proper framework for e- and m-payments, integration efforts have been slow to produce tangible results, thereby delaying interoperability, innovation, increased choice and scale effects. Deadlocks and uncertainties may lead to market participants taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Given the current lack of commitment to such an important initiative for the European economy as a whole, achieving an integrated market requires taking a comprehensive approach involving regulation, self-regulation and competition law compliance and enforcement.
All interested parties are invited to submit their views in response to the above questions.
CONTENT: to launch a consultation with a view to facilitating secure, efficient, competitive and innovative electronic payments by card, internet and mobile phones (Green Paper).
BACKGROUND: the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is based on the premise that there should be no distinction between cross-border and domestic electronic retail payments in euro across the EU. The SEPA project covers the key retail payment instruments: credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards. From this basis, SEPA should be a springboard to creating a competitive and innovative European payments market in two ways.
The first concerns the ever-growing proportion of on-line or internet payments (e-payments) and mobile payments (m-payments) . Above all, the mass take-up of smart phones is changing the payments landscape and is leading to new payment applications, for example electronic purses, replacing wallets and physical cards, or virtual public transport tickets stored in a mobile phone. Here, the pan-European SEPA payment instruments can provide the basis for more integrated and secure payment innovations. Secondly, the existing standards and rules developed under SEPA could be re-applied to payment instruments in non-euro currencies, thereby taking the boundaries of a Single Market for payments beyond euro-denominated transactions.
The euro retail payments market is one of the largest in the world and involves millions of companies and hundreds of millions of citizens. According to statistics from the European Central Bank (ECB), in 2009 almost 58 billion retail payment transactions were made in the euro area alone. Annual growth rates of the e-commerce market size over the next five years are projected at around 10 %. Average spending per capita at EU level is forecast to rise from EUR 483 in 2009 to EUR 601 in 2014 .
The economic benefits of integrating this market are substantial. For example, studies suggest that full migration to SEPA for credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards could yield direct and indirect benefits of more than EUR 300 billion over a six-year period . The current degree of payment integration at European level varies markedly between the various payment instruments (such as credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards) and channels (e- or mpayments) used to make a payment.
Payment cards are the most common and frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail payments. In terms of volume (number of transactions), card payments represented a third of all retail payments in 2009. However, integration of the European payment card market is far from complete and tangible results are still limited. The lack of a coherent and comprehensive (self-) regulatory framework currently leads to a European e-payments environment that is largely fragmented along national borders with a small number of successful domestic e-payment schemes and a limited number of large international players from outside Europe. Market penetration of m-payments in the EU still has considerable unrealised potential, in comparison, for example, to the Asia/Pacific region; the largest and most promising global m-payment initiatives are currently launched outside Europe.
For this vision to become reality for card, e- and m-payments, a number of additional issues need to be addressed, such as security, freedom of choice, unhindered technical and business innovation, standardisation of the various components and interoperability.
CONTENT: this Green Paper assesses the current landscape of card, internet and mobile payments in Europe, identifies the gaps between the current situation and the vision of a fully integrated payments market and the barriers which have created these gaps.
The objective of the Green Paper is to launch a broad-scale consultation process with stakeholders to validate or contribute to the Commission’s analysis and to help identify the right way to improve market integration.
The main issues dealt with in the Green Paper are as follows:
(1) Market access and market entry across borders : a number of separate issues can be identified in this context. It is important to note that these issues, while historically all stemming from commercial practices for payment cards, either are applied in the same form for e- and m-payments or at least have significant spill-over effects which affect e- and m-payments indirectly, for example when an e- or m-payment is made through the use of a payment card.
The proposal calls for:
the need to clarify the legal situation as regards the Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs); the obstacles to development of cross border acquiring which refers to a situation in which a merchant uses the services of an acquiring PSP established in another country; the potential benefits and/or drawbacks of co-badging, a system which combines different payment brands on the same card or device; the possibility to separate schemes and card payment processing; the need to ensure compliance with the SEPA Cards Framework (SCF); the need to establish objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance.
(2) Transparent and cost-effective pricing of payment services : the real cost of these payment services is often opaque, both for consumers and for merchants, which leads to higher payment costs in the EU economy. The lack of transparency mostly applies to the cards market, but links between cards, e- and m-payments have implications for all these payment methods. Furthermore, increased transparency in pricing should be seen as a way to reduce the costs of payment transactions for all parties involved and ultimately optimise costs across the EU for the benefit of payment service users. Another issue related to the pricing of payment services concerns micro-payments, i.e. low-value payments, which by their nature are often made by card, internet or mobile payments. Payment fees are often perceived as excessive, both by consumers and merchants.
(3) Technical standardisation : European payment users (companies, consumers, merchants) will fully benefit from competition, freedom of choice and more efficient payment operations if cross-border interoperability is achieved. This applies to all electronic payments and involves multiple actors in the payment process, depending on the payment method. However, standardisation of the various components (e.g. protocols, interfaces, applications, services) needs to be carried out thoroughly23 in order to minimise the risk of foreclosure of potential competitors or innovation.
The question is asked as to whether the use of common standards for card payments would be beneficial and if the current governance arrangements are sufficient to coordinate, drive and ensure the adoption and implementation of common standards for card payments within a reasonable timeframe.
(4) Interoperability between service providers : c ooperation is a key requirement in a network industry such as payments, as any payment requires an agreement between the payer’s payment service provider and the payee’s payment service provider. To ensure that any payment can reach any beneficiary without detriment to the actors and intermediaries involved, a higher level of coordination is desirable in the form of full interoperability.
In line with the Commission’s proposal for credit transfers and direct debits , the principle of interoperability could be applied in the cards market, in addition to addressing the obstacles
mentioned above, particularly for the choice of the acquirer and the commercial rules.
(5) Payments security and data protection : t he security of retail payments is a crucial prerequisite for payment users and merchants alike. The public consultation on the future of e-commerce in the internal market confirmed this and identified payments security as one of the key hurdles preventing the widespread adoption of electronic commerce.
The continuous replacement of signature-based cards (equipped with a magnetic stripe for card reading) by ‘Chip and PIN’ (EMV-compliant) cards has helped reduce fraud significantly at the point-of-sale at European level. While this helped to drive down card fraud in physical payment transactions, fraudulent activity is now increasingly moving to remote card transactions, in particular to payments over the internet .
A second important issue in this field is data protection. All payment means referred to in this document imply the processing of personal data and the use of electronic communication networks. It is crucial that authentication mechanisms for payment transactions are designed from the outset to include the necessary measures to ensure compliance with data protection requirements.
(6) Governance : until now, SEPA has been predominantly run as a self-regulatory project, set up and managed by the European banking industry through the EPC, with the strong support of the ECB and the Commission. With the adoption of the Regulation establishing technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros a more active involvement of the EU institutions in the SEPA governance may be useful . In this context, a more prominent role for the legislative and regulatory oversight through, for example, the ECB, the Commission or the European Banking Authority (EBA) could be considered.
In areas such as creating a proper framework for e- and m-payments, integration efforts have been slow to produce tangible results, thereby delaying interoperability, innovation, increased choice and scale effects. Deadlocks and uncertainties may lead to market participants taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Given the current lack of commitment to such an important initiative for the European economy as a whole, achieving an integrated market requires taking a comprehensive approach involving regulation, self-regulation and competition law compliance and enforcement.
All interested parties are invited to submit their views in response to the above questions.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2013)110
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T7-0426/2012
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A7-0304/2012
- Committee opinion: PE489.574
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE492.906
- Committee draft report: PE491.085
- Contribution: COM(2011)0941
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2011)0941
- Non-legislative basic document: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2011)0941
- Non-legislative basic document: COM(2011)0941 EUR-Lex
- Committee draft report: PE491.085
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE492.906
- Committee opinion: PE489.574
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2013)110
- Contribution: COM(2011)0941
Activities
- Alexander Nuno PICKART ALVARO
Plenary Speeches (2)
- Elena BĂSESCU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Christian ENGSTRÖM
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Petru Constantin LUHAN
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Andreas MÖLZER
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Sampo TERHO
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU
Plenary Speeches (1)
- Artur ZASADA
Plenary Speeches (1)
Amendments | Dossier |
191 |
2012/2040(INI)
2012/06/22
IMCO
36 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that while electronic payments are playing an increasingly important role in Europe and in the world, serious obstacles remain for a fully and effectively integrated, competitive, innovative, safe, transparent and consumer-friendly European single market with regard to these forms of payments;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. welcomes the provisions in the new Consumer Rights Directive with respect to additional payments and the ban on exceeding fees for the use of means of payment, which will contribute to the confidence of consumers when shopping online; calls however on the Commission to continue its efforts with respect to the creation of a level playing field in the area of card, internet and mobile payments, benefitting consumers and businesses alike in a Digital Single Market;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that, in this connection, measures should be taken to halt frequent discrimination against European consumers whose payments for cross- border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Believes that consumer refund rights should be strengthened, both in the case of unauthorised payments and in the case of undelivered (or non delivered as promised) goods or services, and that effective Collective Redress and Alternative Dispute Resolution systems are indispensable tools for the protection of consumers, also in the field of electronic payments;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that standardisation at European level is needed, in the form of a regulatory framework that establishes security standards for each form of electronic payments, and that regulates all the actors involved in the provision of payment services as well as all intermediaries, including merchants (e.g. storage of credentials). In the definition of the standards, account should be taken of the systems that have brought significant shifts towards safer payments (e.g. CHIP&PIN system for cards, Two-factor authentication system, E-Signature and Online payments by pass through services for e-payments), of the systems more vulnerable to frauds (e.g. where consumers' sensitive personal data are transmitted to third parties, as in Online payments by overlay services, or magnetic strip system, for cards) and of the innovations that could make the processes safer;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that further standardisation at European level is needed,
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that standardisation should not be limited to the definition of security standards but should include measures necessary to ensure a more open, transparent, innovative, competitive and unfragmented electronic payments market that brings advantages to all consumers (for example with regard to interoperability or, in m-payments, portability). Considers that, to reach this target, the tool of mandatory co-badging for payments cards, when required by the cardholder, should be taken into consideration (in that case the choice of priority between the PSPs available on the card should be up to the consumer) and that the remaining obstacles for cross- border acquiring should be eliminated;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that care must be taken to ensure that any such measures always comply with the principles of free competition and free market entry and access, taking account of future technological innovations in this sector so as to adapt to future developments and consistently promoting and facilitating innovation and competitiveness;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that all cross-border and domestic multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) should be made public and asks the Commission and Member States to ensure they are published;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that while electronic payments are playing an increasingly important role in Europe and in the world, serious obstacles remain for a fully and effectively integrated, competitive, safe, transparent and consumer-friendly European digital single market with regard to these forms of payments;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Considers that it should be possible for PSPs (even if non-banks) to have information on the funds availability of a client making a payment, in order to be sure that he is not in an overdraft situation, but that that information should be limited to a simple indication whether these funds are or are not available. Believes that charges for this operation should be harmonised;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised and progressively banned by a fixed deadline and that, in parallel, surcharges, rebates and other steering practices should be progressively banned as well, paving the way for a more transparent European single market of payments. Also the issue of three parties systems "implicit interchange fees" should be faced and these fees progressively banned. In this context considers changes to 'No Discrimination' or 'Honour All Cards' Rules counterproductive and to be avoided;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points out that domestic and cross- border multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) vary significantly between Member States; Believes that both domestic and cross-boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-boarder
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-border multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers that enforcement of rules in electronic payments is often difficult, not adequate and different in Europe, and that stronger efforts should be made to ensure a proper and uniform enforcement of the rules;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recognises the role of multilateral interchange fees as a critical tool to balance the benefits and costs of electronic payments, and ensures that each participant pays their fair share of the costs associated with providing card payment services. Any excessive regulatory intervention in interchange may result in fewer payment choices, an increase in costs for consumers, curb innovation and have a negative impact on investment in security;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that in the current crisis it is essential to take action to boost economic growth and job creation and restimulate consumption. While the digital market provides a great opportunity to achieve these objectives, the European Union must for this purpose be in a position to establish a full digital internal market. It is vital to demolish existing obstacles on the one hand and boost consumer confidence on the other; in this connection, the existence of a neutral and safe European single market for card, internet and mobile payments facilitating free competition and innovation is essential for the achievement of a genuine single digital market and could greatly contribute to increasing consumer confidence;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods, given that traders generally include transaction costs in the price of their products and services, with the result that consumers are not properly informed in advance regarding the total cost and pay more for their purchases, thereby undermining consumer confidence;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Affirms that a self-regulatory approach is not sufficient; considers that the Commission and ECB should take a more
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Affirms that a self-regulatory approach is not sufficient; considers that the Member States, together with the Commission and ECB, should take a more active and leading role
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by card; considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Highlights that non-banks should not have access to information on the balance of funds of a customers' bank account, apart from a simple confirmation at the point when the transaction takes place that there are sufficient funds to complete a transaction;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Asks the Commission to assess the possibility of liberalising the payment card market and promoting new entrants into this market, by for example having a common payment infrastructure for all transactions regardless of the card provider.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that the development of transparent, safe and effective payment systems in the European digital market is essential to ensure a genuine digital economy and facilitate cross-border e- commerce;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the important role that e
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recognises in this connection that the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is a cornerstone for the creation of an integrated European payments market and should serve as a basis for developing it and making it more innovative and competitive;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes the view that incisive actions to inform consumers on conditions and requirements for safe electronic payments should be put in place at European level, in order to
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Affirms that the transparency of the electronic payments systems, correct information to consumers in any payment transaction and a direct and easy access to information are prerequisites for a well functioning European market for electronic payments;
source: PE-492.607
2012/07/12
ECON
155 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 8 a (new) - having regard to the European Data Protection Supervisor's (EDPS) response of 11 April 2012 to the Commission public consultation on the Green Paper "Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments"1;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the Green Paper does not tackle the cost of cash or cheque payments in comparison with card, internet and mobile payments, thus preventing an analysis of the economic and welfare cost of payments by
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Considers that the
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Considers that there are crucial differences between the three-party and four-party payment schemes and that each scheme should be treated according to its specificities, though ultimately in an equal manner in order to ensure a level playing field and foster competition and transparency for consumers and merchants;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Considers that the
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Considers that the
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 a (new) 14a. Calls for more transparency on cardholder fees and costs and benefits of additional services; considers that practices where cardholder fees or bonuses are dependent on spending behaviour of customers should be discouraged since they can constitute a threat for vulnerable consumers or raise transparency issues for card use by companies and their employees to pay for work-related expenses;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that co-badging could be beneficial to consumers as it would result in fewer cards and a wider range of choices, and would encourage competition; highlights however that mandatory co- badging may reduce competition and present some security and liability risks, arising from constraints on a card scheme to contract freely with business partners of their choice;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that co-badging which has been voluntarily entered upon by involved payment systems could be beneficial to consumers as it would result in fewer cards
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that co-badging which has been voluntarily entered upon into by both payment systems could be
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 15 15. Notes that co-badging could be beneficial to consumers as it would result in fewer cards and a wider range of choices, and would encourage competition; however, points out that co-badging should not be used as a bypass for domestic schemes by a pre-decided use of the domestic brand;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the current business model for card payments and the level of MIFs constitute a major barrier for market access and increased competition in the payments market;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Stresses that the customer and the issuing PSP should mutually agree on co- badging
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Stresses that the customer and the issuing PSP should mutually agree on co- badging and that it should not be made mandatory, while the choice of brand should be left to the customer;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Calls on the Commission to propose solutions that will encourage the co- badging of more than one SEPA- compliant scheme; believes that thorough consideration should be given to issues, such as the compatibility of management procedures, technical interoperability, and liability of security;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Stresses that it must be clear to all parties as to who is responsible for the protection and confidentiality of cardholder and merchant data and responsible for the co-branded payment instrument;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. Considers that co-badging should be introduced together with appropriate information for consumers, to protect them from the risk of being misled;
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17.
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Welcomes the ban on surcharges for the use of card payments in some Member States; calls on
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 17. Welcomes the ban on surcharges for the use of card payments in some Member States; calls on
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the current business model for card payments allows sometimes excessive levels of MIFs, which constitute a barrier for competition;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. Notes that surcharging solely based on the payment choice made by a customer risks to be arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than covering cost, and overall is not beneficial to the development of the single market, as it inhibits competition and increases market fragmentation and confusion for the consumer;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 18. Considers that limiting surcharges to the direct cost of using a payment instrument can be beneficial;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Considers that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements; notes that standardised security solutions would simplify customer information and thus the way customers adapt to security arrangements and they would also reduce costs within PSPs and therefore all PSPs should be required to maintain common minimum security solutions, which may naturally be improved by PSPs but these improvements should not become competition barriers;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 18 a (new) 18a. Considers that rebates favouring direct debit are not in the interest of consumers who might prefer other payment methods in order to avoid payment errors, in particular in the case of online payments;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, but that they should be informed about security precautions
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, but that they should be informed about security precautions
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D a (new) Da. whereas the current level of MIFs seems to exceed the actual cost of financing the system and constitutes a major barrier for competition in payments' market;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 19. Recalls that the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, but that they should be informed about security precautions, and considers, therefore, that educational programmes and public information campaigns should be encouraged with a view to increasing public awareness and knowledge of digital security issues in particular;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Calls on the Commission when developing a strategy and instruments for the integration of payment markets by card, internet and mobile phone, to take into account the standards and recommendations of EDPS regarding transparency, identification of the controller/ processor, proportionality and rights of the data subject;
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 a (new) 19a. Considers it important that all payment frauds in SEPA are reported to a centralised site for monitoring, statistics and evaluation, in order to respond quickly to new security threats and that the main developments should be made public;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 19 b (new) 19b. Asks the Commission to extend the concept of privacy by design beyond authentication mechanisms and security safeguards so as to ensure data minimization, to implement privacy by default settings, to limit the access to individual's information to what is strictly needed to provide the service and to implement tools enabling users to better protect their personal data;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Considers that the security of face-to- face card payments is already high and the gradual change from magnetic cards to chip cards, which should be completed rapidly, will improve the level of security even further, but is worried that some current European EMV-implementations may not be fully consistent and urges to remedy this unwanted situation and reminds that improved solutions are also needed for remote network-based card payments;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Considers that the security of face to face card payments is
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Considers that the security of face-to- face card payments is already high and the gradual change from magnetic cards to chip cards will improve the level of security even further;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 20 20. Considers that the security of face-to- face card payments is already high and the gradual change from magnetic cards to chip cards will improve the level of security even further;
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Believes that providing third parties with data on the availability of funds in
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 21 21. Believes that providing third parties with data on the availability of funds in bank accounts entails risks; notes that one of the risks is that consumers may not be fully aware of who has access to their account information, and in the context of which legal framework, and which operator is responsible for the payment services the consumer is using;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas cross-border acquiring is an option currently open only to a limited number of players, and whereas this arrangement could expand the choices the merchant can make and thus
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Stresses that regulation could lower these security risks and could make payments through non-bank PSPs as safe as payments directly from bank accounts, as long as secure systems are available in
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 22 22. Stresses that regulat
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built and thoroughly tested; notes that in any future regulation special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights; considers, in particular, that it should be clearly specified which parties can have access to which information and under which conditions the data can be stored; stresses that a clear distinction between access to information on the availability of funds for a given transaction and access to a customer's account information in general should be made when establishing a regulatory framework for third-party access;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built and thoroughly tested; notes that in any future regulation special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights; considers, in particular, that
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built and thoroughly tested; notes that in any future regulation third- party access should be limited to binary ('yes-no') information on availability of funds and special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights; considers, in particular, that it should be clearly specified which parties can have access to
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built and thoroughly tested; notes that
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Calls on the Commission to ensure protection of personal data by proposing, after the consultation of the European Data Protection Supervisor, clear regulation as to which role each actor plays in collecting data and for which purpose, and a clear definition of the actors responsible for collecting, processing and retaining data; believes that controllers should be enabled to ensure that obligations are complied with and actors are held accountable for violations and that it should be ensured that actors only access and process the data that are strictly necessary for the performance of their services; adds that card users should have the possibility to access and rectify their personal data, also in a complex cross border context; finds that data protection requirements should be implemented along the principle of "privacy by design/by default" and that businesses or consumers should not bear the responsibility to protect their data;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Welcomes the consultation being undertaken by the European Commission with stakeholders as part of the green paper on the subject of SEPA governance as per recital 5 of Regulation 260/2012 and is looking forward to the proposal it intends to put forward on the subject at the end of this year; underlines that the immediate priority of all SEPA stakeholders has to be the preparation for SEPA migration as per the conditions laid down by Regulation 260/2012 so as to ensure a smooth transition from the use of national to pan-European payment schemes;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Believes that consumer refund rights should be strengthened, both in the case of unauthorised payments and in the case of undelivered (or non delivered as promised) goods or services, and that effective Collective Redress and Alternative Dispute Resolution systems are indispensable tools for the protection of consumers, also in the field of electronic payments;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas surcharges for the use of card payments are not allowed in some Member States but widely in use in some others and excessive surcharges have been to the detriment of consumers;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 a (new) 23a. Notes that as security threats keep increasing there is a role for also European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) and the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI) to be actively involved in developing security standards;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 b (new) 23b. Notes that in payment systems where one or many of the participants are in different Member States, the Commission is expected to make a clarifying proposal on which courts or which out-of-court dispute settlement system should be used for any disputes and that consumers have easy access and use of these Alternative Dispute Resolution bodies.
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 c (new) 23c. Calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, while the development of technical and security standards would be organised separately to support the implementation of the related legislation;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 d (new) 23d. Considers it important to strengthen the SEPA governance and to give the renewed SEPA Council a stronger role and that this new governing body should consist of the main relevant stakeholders and be created in such a way that it provides a possibility for democratic control through the Commission and other European authorities; proposes that a renewed SEPA-Council should lead the work, identify a time schedule and work plan, decide on the priorities and major issues thus arbitrating disagreements between stakeholders, and democratic control should be ensured through the EC, ECB and EBA having a prominent role;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 23 e (new) 23e. Considers that the SEPA Council should be assisted by various technical committees, or "task forces" for e- payment, m-payment, cards, cash and other standardisation issues and ad hoc working groups; believes, therefore, that the current projects like the OSeC project for coordinating the implementation of the Evaluation and Certification Framework, the OScar project for coordinating the implementation of the Evaluation and Certification Framework or SecuRe Pay to provide common security solutions could benefit from attached to this structure;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas the SEPA Cards Framework requires customers to be able "to use general purpose cards to make payments and cash withdrawals in euro throughout the SEPA area with the same ease and convenience than they do in their home country. There should be no differences whether they use their card(s) in their home country or somewhere else within SEPA. No general purpose card scheme designed exclusively for use in a single country, as well as no card scheme designed exclusively for cross-border use within SEPA, should exist any longer."
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas successful SEPA migration can be expected to give an impetus to the development of innovative pan-European means of payment;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas payment providers often do not provide alternative payment methods to the ones with surcharges and therefore harm consumers;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F a (new) Fa. whereas in practice surcharges and rebates have been to the detriment of consumers with no benefits for them;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European market for card, internet and mobile payments is fragmented across national borders and only a few big players are able to get acceptance by merchants and to operate on a cross-border basis;
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Commends the Commission for providing the Green Paper and finds the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant and fully agrees with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security as well as customer trust;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 a (new) -1a. Agrees with the Commission that it is necessary to distinguish between three different product markets in the sphere of four-party bank card systems: first of all a market in which the various card systems compete to get financial institutions as their issuing or acquiring customers; then a first 'downstream' market, in which the issuing banks compete for the business of the bank card holders ('the issuing market'); lastly a second 'downstream' market, in which the acquiring banks compete for the merchants' business ('the acquiring market') and considers that free competition should be enhanced at every market;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 b (new) -1b. Notes the importance of market- based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, but recognizes that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests; expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true SEPA for card, internet and mobile payments and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 c (new) -1c. Underlines the need for a clear and comprehensive vision of a SEPA for cards, internet and mobile payments and provision of necessary guidelines and timelines to reach the basic goal that there should not be any difference between cross-border and national payments;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 d (new) -1d. Underlines the need to advance towards a real-time clearing and settlement system, which technically is already within reach and used for some payments, and stresses that moving to a real-time economy should be an important goal SEPA-wide and that an advanced real-time interbank system would need to have SEPA-wide reachability;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 e (new) -1e. Is therefore of the opinion that all national card, mobile and internet payment schemes should join or turn themselves into a Pan-European SEPA- compliant scheme so that all card and mobile and internet payments would be accepted everywhere in the SEPA and that a necessary period should be suggested by the Commission for this transition;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 f (new) -1f. Believes that all card schemes whether four party, three party or mixed schemes and any new market entrants should be treated equally in order to ensure a level playing field also when all acquirers should need to accept all cards;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 g (new) -1g. Notes that all terminals should be able to accept all cards and fulfil interoperability requirements and therefore any technical barriers resulting from differences in the functionality and certification requirements for terminals should be removed as common standards and rules and standardised terminal software would increase competition;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Believes that a self-regulatory approach for the integrated European market for payments is not sufficient; calls on the Commission to take legislative action to ensure payment security, fair competition, financial inclusion, protection of personal data and transparency for consumers;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph -1 a (new) -1a. Calls on the Commission to reform the SEPA governance to ensure that decision-making process is democratic, transparent and serving the public interest. This requires a more active and leading role of the Commission and the ECB in the SEPA governance as well as balanced representation of all relevant stakeholders in all SEPA decision making and implementing bodies, guaranteeing sufficient involvement of end users;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas the European market for card, internet and mobile payments is at present still fragmented across national borders and only a few big players are able to operate on a cross-border basis;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Expresses concern at unduly tight regulation of internet and mobile payment markets at this stage because such payment methods are still in the process of development; considers that any regulatory initiative in this field risks to be characterised by an undue emphasis on already existing payment instruments and may thus deter innovation and distort the market before it has developed; asks the Commission to adopt a radically different and appropriate approach to
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Expresses concern at unduly tight regulation of internet and mobile payment markets at this stage because such payment methods are still in the process of development; asks the Commission to adopt a radically different and appropriate approach to these new payment methods in any future proposal, and considers it beneficial to harmonise certain new developments from the start before too much fragmentation is created;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Expresses concern at unduly tight regulation of internet and mobile payment markets at this stage because such payment methods are still in the process of development; asks the Commission to adopt a
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Re
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that each payment method has its costs; asks the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost of cash payments compared to other payment methods; asks the Commission also to take into consideration the societal impacts of different payment methods; recalls that all Europeans should have an access to basic banking services;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that each payment method has its costs; asks the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost and societal benefits of cash payments compared to other payment methods; believes that financial inclusion should be one of the key objectives of any regulation of the payment market.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that each payment method has its costs; asks the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost of cash payments
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Recalls that each payment method has its costs; asks the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost of cash payments for all market players compared to other payment methods;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that common technical standards, on an open access basis, would not only enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, which would benefit both consumers and merchants;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Believes that further work on common technical standards
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas the dominant position of two non-European card payment service providers can lead to excessive and unjustified fees for both consumers and merchants, in which their respective banks (the so called issuing and acquiring banks) take advantage of this situation, as stated by the Commission in the Green Paper.
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Notes that for internet and mobile payments most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers and to provide interbank online real-time delivery and underlines that developing new standards is not enough, coordinated implementation is at least as important;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that actions towards common technical standards shall be taken in the light of the importance, effectiveness and sufficiency of the standards currently in place in Europe;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that standardisation should not impose barriers to competition and innovation, but should instead remove obstacles to ensure a level-playing field for all parties; hence recommends that standards must be open to allow for innovation and competition in the market, as mandating a single or closed standard would limit market development and innovation, impose a disproportionate restriction, and would not be conducive to a competitive level playing field;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Stresses that standardisation should not impose barriers to competition and innovation, but should instead remove obstacles to ensure a level-playing field for all parties; notes, however, the Commission's antitrust investigation into the standardization process for payments over the internet (e-payments) undertaken by the EPC;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Notes that basically all payment transactions contain the same kind of data and stresses that there should be safe data communication for any payment allowing straight-through end-to-end real-time processing, and sees the advantages of all systems using the same message format, and reminds that the most obvious choice is the one used for credit transfer and direct debit as defined in the Annex of the SEPA End-date Regulation (i.e. ISO XML 20022) and recommends that it should be used in all transaction data communication from terminal to customer carrying all relevant information;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Notes that ATM cash withdrawal fees outside the PSUs own bank and card scheme are often excessive in many Member States and should be more cost- based SEPA-wide;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Underlines that, given the fast growing but, at present, immature phase of market development for electronic and mobile payments, imposing mandatory standards in these key areas for the enhancement of the digital single market in Europe would entail the risk of negative effects for innovation, competition and market growth;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that according to the Commission's feedback statement of the public consultation on the Green Paper, the implementation of the developed standards often represents a major challenge; calls on the Commission to look into possibility of enforcement mechanisms, such as setting of migration end dates;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 b (new) 4b. Calls on the European Commission to propose legislation on SEPA governance, covering the main features of payment services, legal aspects, including consumer rights and competition rules, while the development of technical and security standards would be the tool to support the implementation of the legislation;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Supports the involvement of all the parties concerned in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the development and wider use of card, internet and mobile payments may also help e-commerce in Europe to grow in size and in diversity, although this should not necessarily generate additional profits for banking institutions and mobile network operators;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Supports the involvement of all the parties concerned in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; notes that these parties may include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the European Payments Council (EPC), consumer organisations,
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Supports the involvement of all the parties concerned in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; notes that these parties may include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the European Payments Council (EPC), consumer organisations, the European Banking Authority, the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) Council, the Commission, experts in various fields, non-
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Supports the involvement of all the parties concerned in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment schemes; notes that these parties may include – but are not necessarily restricted to – the European Payments Council (EPC), consumer organisations, representatives of merchants and retailers, the European Banking Authority, the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) Council, the Commission, experts in various fields, non- banking payment service providers
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the European payments market and should not impose unnecessary barriers in comparison with the global market; furthermore believes that common standards should be sought primarily at global level, in close cooperation with the key economic partners of the EU;
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the European payments market and the security of payments for users, and should not impose unnecessary barriers in comparison with the global market;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses that any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing payment security and the competitiveness of
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the separation of payment infrastructures from payment schemes could increase competition as smaller players would not be blocked out due to technical constraints; stresses that PSPs should be free to select any combination of issuing and acquiring services available within the payment schemes on the market and payment infrastructures should process neutrally transactions of different parallel payment schemes for similar instruments;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the separation of payment infrastructures from payment schemes
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas self-regulation of the payment market dominated by the banking industry has led to a marginalisation of user interests in decision-making processes;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Notes that the separation of payment infrastructures from payment schemes could increase competition as smaller players would not be blocked out due to technical constraints; recalls that supporting the competitiveness of SMEs is a key component of the European Union's growth strategy;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that consumer privacy should be protected in accordance with the European and national legislation and each party in the payment chain should only have access to data relevant to its processing and the rest would be bypassed encrypted;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Points out that further standardisation to overcome technical barriers and national settlement and clearing requirements, is needed to promote cross-border acquiring, an arrangement which would increase competition and the choices available for merchants and could result in more cost- efficient payment methods for customers;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Points out that further standardisation is needed to promote cross-border acquiring, an arrangement which would increase competition and the choices available for merchants and could result in more cost- efficient payment methods for customers; believes that merchants should be better informed about the cross-border acquiring possibilities;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Points out that further standardisation
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Points out that further
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Urges that solutions to further facilitate cross-
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Urges that solutions to facilitate cross- border acquiring be actively sought, in view of its advantages to the internal market; expresses concern at existing
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Urges that solutions to facilitate cross- border acquiring be actively sought, in view of its advantages to the internal market; expresses concern at existing barriers, such as some licensing
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Stresses that there should be no major differences between legislation of various payment accounts, and the payer should be able to make an internet or mobile funds transfer to any payee whose account is in any SEPA-connected financial institution;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas due to technical progress cards payment systems may progressively be replaced by other electronic and mobile means of payment;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 b (new) 9b. Underlines that all authorised PSPs should have the same access right to clearing and settlement facilities, if they have adequate risk management procedures, fulfil minimum technical requirements and are deemed to be sufficiently stable so that they do not pose any risk, i.e. basically are subject to the same relevant requirements as banks;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 c (new) 9c. Reminds, that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012 the Multilateral Interchange Fee, MIF, may be considered anticompetitive and asks the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models of card, mobile or internet payments.
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that MIFs can currently be justified as a means to finance interbank services in the four-
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Reminds that according to the basic idea of SEPA there should be no difference between national and cross- border MIFs or MIFs of a PSP in two Member States; notes that the level of MIFs should converge or be reduced gradually within a set timeframe and expects the Commission to propose a transitional period to this effect including objective criteria for the difference of MIFs during the transitional period and underlines that eliminating national MIF differences would complement the provisions of Regulation 924/2009, which aims at eliminating the differences in charges for cross-border and national payments;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Stresses the lack of transparency and the anticompetitive nature of MIFs; urges the Commission to come up with legislation, enforcing fair and transparent business model for card payments, which doesn't distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the Green Paper does not tackle the costs and societal benefits of cash payments in comparison with card, internet and mobile payments, thus preventing an analysis of the economic and welfare costs and societal benefits of payments by cash;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to propose a reform of the business model for card payments which satisfies the following criteria: - is transparent and fair, - does not distort competition in the payments market by creating barriers to entry of new market players;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to propose a reform of the business model for card payments which satisfies the following criteria: - is transparent and fair, - does not create barriers to entry of new market players.
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Notes that after a transitional period a person coming from any Member State should have his or her SEPA-compatible payment card accepted at every payment terminal in the SEPA, and the payment should be safely routed; notes that this requirement might imply that MIFs need to be regulated to fall under a threshold, and insists that this should not result in an increase of MIFs in any Member State but rather to a decrease and perhaps approach zero at some later stage.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 c (new) 10c. Considers that the "Honour All Cards Rule" (HACR), the "Non- Discrimination rule" (NDC) and blending should be banned as anticompetitive practices;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 d (new) 10d. Considers that cross-border and central acquiring should be enhanced and any technical or legal obstacle should be removed, as that this would help reducing the levels of MIFs and merchant fees;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the Green Paper does not tackle the cost of cash payments in comparison with card, internet and mobile payments, thus preventing a
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 11. Believes that a maximum level for MIFs should not be imposed by regulation at EU level as this could cause the currently low MIFs available in some Member States to rise closer to the maximum level allowed; stresses that legal clarity and certainty are needed regarding the MIFs;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 a (new) 11a. Points out that if this new legislative proposal provides for fees, these should be cost based and full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Considers that
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Considers that the transparency of MIFs should be
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 12. Considers that the transparency of
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 12 a (new) 12a. Recalls that Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros points out that no MIF can be applied after 1 February 2017; calls for the same approach for card payments;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 a (new) 13a. Calls on the Commission to consider negotiating with relevant industry representatives a MIF setting methodology for cards, after conducting a full impact assessment;
source: PE-492.906
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/0 |
|
docs/4 |
|
docs/5 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.085New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-PR-491085_EN.html |
docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.906New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-AM-492906_EN.html |
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE489.574&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/IMCO-AD-489574_EN.html |
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/2/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/3 |
|
events/3 |
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20121119&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2012-11-19-TOC_EN.html |
events/6 |
|
events/6 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 150
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 54
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
docs/3/body |
EC
|
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-304&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0304_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-426New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0426_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
ECON/7/08785New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52011DC0941:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0941New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0941/COM_COM(2011)0941_FR.pdf |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52011DC0941:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0941/COM_COM(2011)0941_FR.pdfNew
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0941 |
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a |
activities/2/committees/0/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a |
committees/0/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a |
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/committees |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2012-09-26T00:00:00New
2012-01-11T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Non-legislative basic document published |
activities/1/body |
Old
ECNew
EP |
activities/1/commission |
|
activities/1/committees |
|
activities/1/date |
Old
2012-01-11T00:00:00New
2012-03-15T00:00:00 |
activities/1/docs |
|
activities/1/type |
Old
Non-legislative basic documentNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/2/committees |
|
activities/2/date |
Old
2012-03-08T00:00:00New
2012-09-26T00:00:00 |
activities/2/type |
Old
EP officialisationNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sampo TERHO (EFD, FI) on the Green Paper Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. Members commend the Commission for providing the Green Paper, find the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant, and fully agree with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust. The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows: The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, the committee recognises that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive. The report points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance. Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent. They therefore call upon the Commission also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They stress that actions towards common technical standards shall be taken in the light of the importance, effectiveness and sufficiency of the standards currently in place in Europe. Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards, on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants. Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery. The report underlines that, given the fast-growing but, at present, immature phase of market development for electronic and mobile payments, imposing mandatory standards in these key areas for the enhancement of the digital single market in Europe would entail the risk of negative effects for innovation, competition and market growth. In Members opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EUs key economic partners. Governance: the report calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation. Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliaments previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process. Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive, Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments. Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, the report points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options. The report favours MIFs being regulated at the European level, with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates. Surcharging: the report stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States. Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge. Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States, and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer. They are generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. They note that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yesno') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights. New
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sampo TERHO (EFD, FI) on the Green Paper Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. Members commend the Commission for providing the Green Paper, find the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant, and fully agree with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust. The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows: The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, the committee recognises that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive. The report points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance. Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent. They therefore call upon the Commission also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They stress that actions towards common technical standards shall be taken in the light of the importance, effectiveness and sufficiency of the standards currently in place in Europe. Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards, on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants. Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery. The report underlines that, given the fast-growing but, at present, immature phase of market development for electronic and mobile payments, imposing mandatory standards in these key areas for the enhancement of the digital single market in Europe would entail the risk of negative effects for innovation, competition and market growth. In Members opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EUs key economic partners. Governance: the report calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation. Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliaments previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process. Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive, Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments. Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, the report points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options. The report favours MIFs being regulated at the European level, with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates. Surcharging: the report stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States. Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge. Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States, and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer. They are generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. They note that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yesno') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights. |
activities/4 |
|
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-01-11T00:00:00New
2012-11-19T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
DateNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/5 |
|
activities/5/committees |
|
activities/5/date |
Old
2012-03-15T00:00:00New
2012-11-20T00:00:00 |
activities/5/docs |
|
activities/5/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Results of vote in Parliament |
activities/6 |
|
activities/9 |
|
activities/10 |
|
activities/11 |
|
committees/0/committee |
Old
IMCONew
ECON |
committees/0/committee_full |
Old
Internal Market and Consumer ProtectionNew
Economic and Monetary Affairs |
committees/0/date |
Old
2012-03-29T00:00:00New
2012-03-27T00:00:00 |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
EFD |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de183fa0fb8127435bdbce6New
4f1ac4c9b819f25896000035 |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
COFFERATI Sergio GaetanoNew
TERHO Sampo |
committees/0/responsible |
Old
New
True |
committees/0/shadows |
|
committees/1/committee |
Old
ECONNew
IMCO |
committees/1/committee_full |
Old
Economic and Monetary AffairsNew
Internal Market and Consumer Protection |
committees/1/date |
Old
2012-03-27T00:00:00New
2012-03-29T00:00:00 |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EFDNew
S&D |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de188e80fb8127435bdc3ecNew
4f1ac731b819f25efd000071 |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
TERHO SampoNew
COFFERATI Sergio Gaetano |
committees/1/responsible |
Old
TrueNew
|
committees/1/shadows |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048New
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052 |
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-11-19T00:00:00New
2012-06-04T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Debate scheduledNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-06-04T00:00:00New
2012-07-12T00:00:00 |
activities/6/docs/0/title |
Old
PE491.085New
PE492.906 |
activities/6/docs/0/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.085New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.906 |
activities/6/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/9/date |
Old
2012-11-20T00:00:00New
2012-11-19T00:00:00 |
activities/9/type |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/11/date |
Old
2012-07-12T00:00:00New
2012-11-20T00:00:00 |
activities/11/docs/0/title |
Old
PE492.906New
T7-0426/2012 |
activities/11/docs/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/11/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.906
|
activities/11/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
activities/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0941/COM_COM(2011)0941_FR.pdf |
activities/8/docs/0/text |
|
activities/9/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate scheduled |
activities/10 |
|
activities/11 |
|
activities/8/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-304&language=EN
|
activities/4 |
|
activities/4/body |
Old
ECNew
EP |
activities/4/commission |
|
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-10-22T00:00:00New
2012-06-04T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Prev DG PRESNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6 |
|
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-10-22T00:00:00New
2012-07-12T00:00:00 |
activities/6/docs |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
EP 1R PlenaryNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/11 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/8 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/7/committees |
|
activities/7/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3/committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/6 |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/7/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
activities/8 |
|
activities/4 |
|
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-09-19T00:00:00New
2012-06-04T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6 |
|
activities/7/date |
Old
2012-09-19T00:00:00New
2012-09-26T00:00:00 |
activities/5 |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.085
|
activities/4 |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/3/committees/0/date |
2012-03-27T00:00:00
|
activities/3/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
activities/4 |
|
committees/0/date |
2012-03-27T00:00:00
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/3/committees/1/date |
2012-03-29T00:00:00
|
activities/3/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
committees/1/date |
2012-03-29T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|