BETA

Activities of Nikolaos CHOUNTIS related to 2012/2040(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

REPORT on ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’ PDF (230 KB) DOC (143 KB)
2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2012/2040(INI)
Documents: PDF(230 KB) DOC(143 KB)

Amendments (10)

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.
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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 compared to other payment methods;for all market players and consumers compared to other payment methods; including the peculiarities and societal benefits of cash.
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competieffectiveness of the European payments market and should not impose unnecessary barriers in comparison with the global market systems;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that MIFs can currently be justified as a means toNotes that the level of MIFs is usually higher than what the financeing of 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 requires; considers that MIFs should be regulated in order not to become a means for the abuse of a market dominant position;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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.
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 88 #
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 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses, however, that the lack of transparency on MIFs between merchants and the payment service providers (PSPs) is a more acute problem than the lack of transparency between the consumer and the merchant; believes that information overflow would not bring additional value to consumers and would mean transparency in theory but not in practice;deleted
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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 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 Commission to propose a general ban on surcharging and rebates at EU level for all payment services;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
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; stresses, however, that allowing or banning surcharging should ultimately be left to the Member States to decide;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON