BETA

16 Amendments of Sophia IN 'T VELD related to 2012/2040(INI)

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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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; noturges 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-banking payment service providers and representatives of mobile, internet and card payment providerse Commission to answer previous calls of the European Parliament for thorough reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in decision- making and standard-setting process; recalls the Commission's commitment in the declaration on SEPA governance to the Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, to come up with proposal before the end of 2012;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that MIFs can currently be justified as a means to finance the four- party card payment systems; notes that the level of MIFs is sometimes higher than what the financing of the four-party payment system requires;deleted
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 86 #
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 allowdeleted;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 100 #
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 ultim business model for three party payment schemes may raise competition concerns similar to those for four party schemes; believes therefore, both schemes should be treatelyd in an equal manner;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the ban on surcharges for the use of card payments in some Member States; calls on other Member States to consider requiring more transparency on surcharges in order to ensure that the customer knows how much of the surcharge comes from, for example, the MIF and how much is further imposed by the merchant;deleted
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. ConsiderNotes that limiting surcharges to the direct cost of using a payment instrument canmight be beneficial; stresses, however, that allowing or banning surcharging should ultimately be left to the Member States to decidee difficulties to establish cost categories clearly related to a single payment transaction; therefore, urges the Commission to propose a Europe-wide ban on surcharging;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON