BETA

Activities of Syed KAMALL related to 2013/0139(COD)

Shadow reports (1)

2016/11/22
Committee: ECON
Dossiers: 2013/0139(COD)
Documents: PDF(585 KB) DOC(462 KB)

Amendments (54)

Proposal for a directive
Recital 3

(3) However, more can be done to improve and develop the single market for retail banking~~. In particular, the lack of transparency and comparability of fees as well as the difficulties in switching payment accounts still pose barriers to the deployment of a fully integrated market~~, although it is not clear that there is significant demand for cross-border switching of payment accounts.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 4

(4) The current conditions of the Single Market may deter payments services providers from exercising their freedom to establish or to provide services within the Union because of the difficulty in attracting customers when entering a new market. Entering new markets often entails large investments. Such investments are only justified if the provider foresees sufficient opportunities and a corresponding demand from consumers. The low level of mobility of consumers with respect to retail financial services is to a large extent due to the lack of transparency and comparability as regards the fees and services on offer, as well as difficulties in relation to the switching of payment accounts. These factors also stifle demand. This is particularly true in the cross-border context.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 5

(5) Moreover, significant barriers to the completion of the single market in the area of payment accounts may be created by the fragmentation of existing national regulatory frameworks. Existing provisions at national level with respect to payment accounts, and particularly with respect to the comparability of fees and payment account switching diverge. For switching, the lack of uniform binding measures at EU level has led to divergent practices and measures at national level. These differences are even more marked in the area of comparability of fees, where no measures, even of a self-regulatory nature, exist at EU level. Should these differences become more significant in the future, as banks tend to tailor their practices to national markets, this would raise the cost of operating cross-border relative to the costs faced by domestic providers and therefore make the pursuit of business cross-border less attractive. Cross-border activity in the internal market is hampered by obstacles to consumers opening a payment account abroad. Existing restrictive eligibility criteria may prevent European citizens from moving freely within the Union. Providing all consumers with access to a payment account will permit their participation in the internal market and allow them to obtain the benefits of the single market.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 6

(6) ~~Moreover, since some prospective customers do not open accounts, either because they are denied them or because~~There is a significant degree of variation between Member States in terms of they are not offered adequate products the potential demand for payment account services in the EU is currently not fully exploited. Wider consumer participation in the internal market would further incentivise payment service providers to enter new markets. Also, creating the conditions to allow all consumers to access a paymentbility of consumers to access payment accounts. However in those Member States where there are significant unbanked populations, this appears to be more ac co~~unt is a necessary means to foster their participation in the internal market and to allow them to reap the benefits the Single Market has brough~~nsequence of incomplete banking infrastructure and/or the consumer's preference not to open a payment abccount.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 7

(7) Transparency and comparability of fees have been addressed in a self-regulatory initiative, initiated by the banking industry. However, no final agreement was found on these guidelines. As regards switching, the common principles established in 2008 by the European Banking Industry Committee provide a model mechanism for switching between bank accounts offered by payment service providers located in the same Member State. However, given their non- binding nature, these principles have been applied in an inconsistent manner throughout the EU and with ineffective results. Moreover, the Common Principles only address bank account switching at national level and do not address cross- border switching. Finally, as regards access to a basic payment account, the Commission Recommendation 2011/442/EU of 18 July 2011 invited Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure its application at the latest six months after its publication. To date, only few Member States comply with the main principles of the Recommendation.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8

(8) It is vital, therefore, to establish a uniform set of rules to tackle the issue of low customer mobility and in particular to improve comparison of payment account services and fees and to incentivise payment account switching as well as avoid that consumers who intend to purchase a payment account cross-border are discriminated on the basis of residency. Moreover, it is essential to adopt adequate measures to foster customers' participation in the payment accounts market. These measures will incentivize entry for payment service providers in the internal market and ensure a level playing field, thereby strengthening competition and the efficient allocation of resources within the EU financial retail market to the benefit of businesses and consumers. Also, transparent fee information and switching possibilities combined with the right of access to basic account services will allow EU citizens to move and shop around more easily within the Union and therefore benefit from a fully functioning internal market in the area of retail financial services and contribute to its further development.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 8 a (new)

(8a) It is also vital to ensure that this Directive does not hamper innovation in the area of retail financial services. Each year, new technologies become viable, which sometimes have the potential to render the current model of payment accounts out of date. In particular, mobile banking services, peer-to-peer services and stored value payment cards must be encouraged as alternatives to traditional banking services.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 11

(11) It is vital for consumers to be able to understand fees so that they can compare offers from different payment service providers and make informed decisions as to which account is most suitable for their needs. Comparison between fees cannot be achieved where payment service providers use different terminology for the same payment services and provide information in different formats. Standardised terminology, coupled with targeted fee information for the most representative payment services in a consistent format, can help consumers to both understand and compare fees at national level. Despite this, it must be recognised that there is a huge amount of variation across member states. For those member states with 'free retail banking models', identifying a large number of fee terms may be impossible.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 12

(12) Consumers ~~would benefit most from information~~need information on fees relating to their payment account that is concise and easy to compare between different payment service providers. ~~The tools made available to consumers to compare payment account offers would not have a positive impact~~In this context, the EC adopted Directive 2007/64/EC which, ifn the ~~time invested in going through lengthy lists of fees for different offers outweighed the benefit of choosing the offer that rep~~interest of transparency, lays down conditions and information requiresments ~~the best value. Accordingly, f~~for payment transactions. Fee terminology should only be standardised for the most representative terms and definitions within Member States in order to avoid the risk of excessive information.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 13

(13) The fee terminology should be determined by national competent authorities, allowing for consideration of the specificities of local markets. To be considered representative, services should be subject to a fee at a minimum of one payment service provider in Member States. In addition, where possible, fee terminology should be standardised at EU level, thus allowing for comparison across the Union. The European Banking Authority (EBA) should establish guidelines to assist Member States to determine the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 14

(14) Once national competent authorities have determined a provisional list of the most representative services subject to a fee at national level together with terms and definitions, the Commission should review them to identify, by means of delegated acts, the services that are common to the majority of Member States and propose standardised EU level terms and definitions for them.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 15

(15) In order to help consumers compare payment account fees throughout the single market easily, payment service providers should provide consumers with a list of fees charged for the services listed in the standardised terminology at national level. This would also contribute towards establishing a level playing field between credit institutions competing in the payment account market. The fee information document should only contain information on the most representative payment services in each Member State~~, using the terms and definitions established at EU level where relevant~~. In order to help consumers understand the fees they have to pay for their payment account, a glossary providing explanations for at least the fees and services contained in the list should be made available to them. The glossary should serve as a useful tool to encourage a better understanding of the meaning of fees, contributing towards empowering consumers to choose from a wider choice of payment account offers. An obligation should also be introduced for payment service providers to inform consumers, at least annually, of all the fees charged on their account. Ex-post information should be provided in a dedicated summary. It should provide a complete overview of the fees incurred to enable a consumer to understand what fee expenditures relate to, and to assess the need to either modify consumption patterns or move to another provider. This benefit would be maximised by the ex-post fee information covering the same services as the ex-ante information.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 16

(16) To meet the needs of consumers, it is necessary to ensure that fee information on payment accounts is accurate, clear and comparable. This Directive should therefore lay down common presentation requirements for the fee information document and the statement of fees, in order to ensure that they are understandable and comparable for consumers. The same format, order of items and headings should be followed for every fee information document and statement of fees in each Member State, allowing consumers to compare the two documents, thereby maximising understanding and use of the information. The fee information document and statement of fees should be clearly distinguishable from other communications. They should be identified by a common symbol.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 17

(17) In order to ensure the consistent use of applicable EU level terminology across the Union, Member States should establish an obligation for payment service providers to use the applicable EU level terminology together with the remaining national standardised terminology identified in the provisional list when communicating with consumers, including in the fee information document and the statement of fees. Except for in the fee information document and statement of fees, payment service providers may use brand names to denote services.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 18

(18) Comparison websites are an effective means for consumers to assess the merits of different payment account offers in a single space. They can provide the right balance between the need for information to be clear and concise, yet complete and comprehensive, by enabling users to obtain more detailed information where this is of interest to them. They can also reduce search costs as consumers will not need to collect information separately from payment service providers.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 19

(19) In order to obtain impartial information on bank fees, consumers should be able to access comparison websites which are operationally independent from payment service providers. Member States should therefore ensure that at least one such website is available to consumers in their respective territories. Such comparison websites may be operated by competent authorities, other public authorities and/or accredited private operators. Member States should establish a voluntary accreditation scheme allowing private operators of comparison websites to apply for accreditation in accordance with specified quality criteria. A comparison website operated by a competent authority or other public authority should be established where a privately operated website has not been accredited. Such websites should also comply with the quality criteria.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 20

(20) It is current practice for payment service providers to offer a payment account in a package with other financial products or services. This practice can be a means for payment service providers to diversify their offer and to compete against each other, and in the end it can be beneficial for consumers. However the Commission study on tying practices in the financial sector conducted in 2009 as well as relevant consultations and consumer complaints have showed that payment service providers may offer bank accounts packaged with products not requested by consumers and which are not essential for payment accounts, such as household insurance. Moreover, it has been observed that these practices may reduce transparency and comparability of prices, limit purchasing options for consumers and negatively impact upon their mobility. Therefore, Member States should ensure that when payment service providers offer ~~packaged~~ payment accounts packaged with other financial services consumers are provided with information on the applicable fees for the payment account and for each other financial service included in the package separately~~. T~~, whesre obligations should not apply to services which are naturally connected to the use of the payment account, such as withdrawals, wire transfers or payment cards. As a result, these services should be excluded from the scope of this provisionit is possible for consumers to buy the payment account and the bundled services separately.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 21

(21) Consumers are only incentivised to switch accounts if the process does not entail an excessive administrative and financial burden. The procedure for switching payment accounts to another payment service provider should be clear and quick. The fees, if any, charged by payment service providers in relation to the switching service should be in line with the actual cost incurred by payment service providers. In order to have positive impact on competition, switching should also be facilitated at cross-border level. Given that switching cross-border could be more complex than the switching at national level and may require payment service providers to adapt and refine their internal procedures, longer deadlines for the cross-border switch should be foreseen. The need to maintain different deadlines should be evaluated in the Consumers are only incentivised to switch accounts if the process does not entail an excessive administrative and financial burden. The procedure for switching payment accounts to another payment service provider should be clear and quick. The fees, if any, charged by payment service providers in relation to the switching service should be in line with the actual cost incurred by payment service providers. Moreover, the offering of such services will be challenging as technical standards, business rules and legal requirements between the payment schemes of the EU Member States are different. In addition, Regulation 260/2012 that will enter into force as from 1 February 2014 will make such services obsolete for consumers that move within the Eurozone. For those consumers moving between a Eurozone country and a non-Eurozone country, multi-banking is a very commonly used practice. It allows consumers to open a new account while at the same time maintaining their old account~~ext of the review of the proposed Directive~~, or only closing it if all their obligations with local providers have been ended.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 22

(22) The switching process should be as straightforward as possible for the consumer. Accordingly Member States should ensure that the receiving payment service provider is responsible for initiating and managing the process on behalf of the consumer. The requirements of this Directive relating to the provision of the switching service can be complied with through law, self-regulation or voluntary agreement.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 27

(27) Consumers who ~~are legally resident in the Union and who do not hold a payment account in a certain Member State~~have previously been denied access to a basic payment account, are resident in and can justify a sufficient relationship with the Member State of the PSP where they apply for access to a payment account with basic features should be in a position to open and use a payment account with basic features in that Member State. In order to ensure the widest possible access to such accounts, consumers should have access to them irrespective of their financial circumstances, such as unemployment or personal bankruptcy~~, and of their place of residence~~. Moreover, the right to access a payment account with basic features in any Member State should be granted in conformity with the requirements set out in Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing, in particular with regard to customer due diligence procedures.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 29

(29) To exercise their right to access a basic payment account, consumers should not already hold a payment account ~~in the same territory~~and must have been denied access to a payment account in the Member State. They should justify a sufficient relationship with the Member State of the PSP where they apply for access to a payment account with basic features. When it is not possible to use electronic systems to establish whether or not a consumer already holds a payment account, payment service providers should accept a declaration by consumers as a reliable means of verifying that they ~~do not already hold~~have been denied access to a payment account.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 36

(36) In order to attain the objectives set out in this Directive, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission in respect of identifying the standardised terminology at EU level for payment services common to a number of Member States and the related definitions for these termsdeleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 37

(37) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. These powers relate to the definition of the format of the fee information document, its common symbol and the order in which the services contained in it shall be presented, as well as to the format of the statement of fees, its common symbol and the order in which the services contained in it shall be presented. These powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Recital 39

(39) A review of this Directive should be carried out five years after its entry into force in order to take account of market developments, such as the emergence of new types of payment accounts and payment services, as well as developments in other areas of Union law and the experiences of Member States. The review should assess whether the measures introduced have improved consumer understanding of payment account fees, the comparability of payment accounts and the ease of switching accounts. It should also determine how many basic payment accounts have been opened including by previously unbanked consumers. ~~It should also assess whether extended deadlines for payment service providers performing cross-border switching are to be maintained for a longer period.~~ Also, it should assess whether the provisions on the information to be provided by payment service providers when offering packaged products are sufficient or whether additional measures are needed. A study should also be conducted looking at whether there is demand for a cross- border switching service, or whether the status quo is responsive to consumer demand. The Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1

1. This Directive lays down rules concerning the transparency and comparability of fees charged to consumers on their payment accounts held within the European Union and provided by payment service providers located in the Union and rules concerning the switching of payment accounts within ~~the Union~~a Member State.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. In order to adhere to the requirements set out in this Directive, Member States shall ensure that a payment service provider has access to comprehensive, functional databases by which they are able to verify the address, identity and credit worthiness of consumers in the Member State, in order to assist with fraud prevention, monitoring the consumers' compliance with credit obligations and compliance with their requirements under Directive 2005/60/EC. The conditions for such access shall be non-discriminatory. Mandatory fields within these databases should include name, address, date of birth, country of residence and nationality. Access to such databases will also enable Member States to fulfil the requirements set out in Article 16 of Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on credit agreements relating to residential property.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) ‘payment account’ means an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for the execution of payment transactions;. For the purposes of this Directive, a 'payment account' does not include: i) accounts primarily designed as deposit or savings accounts ii) credit cards iii) current account mortgages; and iv) e-wallets, e-money and e-payment cards.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point r a (new)

(ra) 'business day' means a day on which the relevant payment service provider of the payer or the payee involved in the execution of a payment transaction is open for business as required for the execution of a payment transaction, as defined in Article 4 (27) of Directive 2007/64/EC;

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities referred to in Article 20, determine a ~~provisional list of at least 20~~list of payment services accounting for at least 80% of the most representative payment services subject to a fee at national level. The list shall contain terms and definitions for each of the services identified.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1, the competent authorities shall have regard to the services: (1) most commonly used by consumers in relation to their payment account; (2) which generate the highest cost for consumers per service; (3) which generate the highest overall cost for consumers; (4) which generate the highest profit for payment service providers per service; (5) which generate the highest overall profit for payment service providers. The EBA shall develop guidelines pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 to assist the competent authorities.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3

~~3. Member States shall notify to the Commission the provisional lists referred to in paragraph 1 within 6 months of the entry into force of this Directive.~~deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4

~~4. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt~~ delegated acts, in accordance with Article 24, concerning the setting out, on the basis of the provisional lists submitted pursuant to paragraph 3, of an EU standardised terminology for those payment services that are common to at least a majority of Member States. The EU standardised terminology will include common terms and definitions for the common services.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. Where one or more payment services referred to in paragraph 1 is offered as part of a package of ~~financial services, the fee information document shall disclose which of the services referred to in paragraph 1 are~~payment services for which there is a package fee, the fee information document shall disclose the fee for the entire package, the services included in the package, and the fee for ~~the entire package and the fee for any~~any of those payment services that isare not ~~referred to in paragraph 1~~covered by the package fee.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The title ‘fee information document’ shall prominently appear at the top of the first page of the fee information document next to a common symbol to distinguish the document from other documentation.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 6

6. The fee information document and the glossary shall be made available free of charge ~~at all tim~~upon request by payment service providers on a durable medium at premises accessible to consumers and shall be made available in electronic form on their websites.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 7

7. ~~The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts pursuant to Article 26 to~~Member States shall define the format of the fee information document, its common symbol and the order in which the services referred to in paragraph 5 of Article 3 shall be presented in the fee information document.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) the unit fee charged for each service, the number of times the service was used during the relevant period and the date on which the service was used;~~deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 3

~~3. The title ‘statement of fees’ shall prominently appear at the top of the first page of the statement next to a common symbol to distinguish the document from other documentation.~~deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 4

4. ~~The Commission shall be empowered to adopt implementing acts pursuant to Article 26 to~~Member States shall define the format of the statement of fees, its common symbol and the order in which the services referred to in paragraph 51 of Article 3 shall be presented in the statement of fees.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 7

Article 7 Comparison websites 1. Member States shall ensure that consumers have access to at least one website comparing fees charged by payment service providers for services offered on payment accounts at national level in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3. 2. Member States shall establish a voluntary accreditation scheme for websites comparing fees charged by payment service providers for services offered on payment accounts operated by private operators. In order to be granted accreditation, comparison websites operated by private operators shall: (a) be operationally independent of any payment service provider; (b) use plain language and, where relevant, the terms referred to in Article 3, paragraph 5; (c) provide up-to-date information; (d) provide a sufficiently broad overview of the payment accounts market; (e) operate an effective enquiry and complaints handling procedure. 3. Where no website is accredited pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States shall ensure that a website operated by the competent authority referred to in Article 20 or any other competent public authority is established. Where a website has been accredited pursuant to paragraph 2, Member States may decide to establish an additional website operated by the competent authority referred to in Article 20 or any other competent public authority. Websites operated by a competent authority pursuant to paragraph 1 shall comply with paragraphs 2 (a) to (e). 4. Member States shall retain the right to refuse or withdraw accreditation from private operators in the event of a failure to comply with the obligations in paragraph 2. 5. Member States shall ensure that adequate information about the websites referred to in paragraph 1 is available to consumers. This shall include, where relevant, the maintenance of a publicly accessible register of accredited comparison websites.deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1

1. Without prejudice to Article 4(2), Member States shall ensure that when a payment account is offered together with another financial service or product as part of a package, the payment service provider informs the consumer of whether it is possible to buy the payment account separately and, if so, provides separate information regarding the ~~costs and~~ fees associated with each of the other financial products and services offered in the package, where it is possible to buy each of those financial products and services separately.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1

Member States shall ensure that payment service providers provide a switching service as described in Article 10 to any consumer who holds a payment account with a payment service provider located in ~~the Union~~the Member State where the consumer resides.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 4 – point a

(a) set up within seven ~~calendar~~business days the standing orders for credit transfers requested by the consumer and execute them from the date specified in the authorisation;

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 6 – point a

(a) send the receiving payment service provider the information indicated in points (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 within seven ~~calendar~~business days of receiving the request;

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 8

~~8. Member States shall ensure that the provisions contained in paragraphs 1 to 7 also apply when the switching service is initiated by a payment service provider located in another Member State.~~deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 9

~~9. In the case indicated in paragraph 8, the deadlines indicated in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 shall be doubled. The present provision shall be subject to review pursuant to Article 27.~~deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall ensure that consumers ~~legally~~who are resident in ~~the Union have the right to open and use a payment account with basic features~~or can prove a sufficient relationship with the Member State of the PSP where they apply for access to a payment account with basic features have the right to open and use such account with the payment service provider or providers identified pursuant to paragraph 1. ~~Such a right shall apply irrespective of the~~Member States shall ensure that the exercise of the right is granted to consumer's place of residence. Member States shall ensure that the exercise of the right is not made excessively difficult or burdensome for the consumer. Before opening the payment account with basic features, payment service providers shall verify whether the consumer holds or does not holdwho can give information about the purpose and intended nature of business relationship which justifies the opening of a payment account in the territory of the PSP and that this is not made excessively difficult or burdensome for the consumer. Member States shall ensure that the right to open a payment account with basic features is guaranteed solely for customers who were previously denied access to a payment account in their territory.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) Where a consumer already holds a payment account, with a payment service provider located in their territory, which allows him to make use of the payment services listed in Article 176(1);

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) where the conditions established by Chapter II of Directive 2005/60/EC are not satisfied. and in particular the consumer's duty to give information on the purpose and intended nature of the relationship which justifies the opening of a payment account in the Member State of the PSP where the application is made

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)

(ba) where the consumer cannot prove that it has previously been denied access to a "regular" payment account;

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)

(bb) where the termination grounds mentioned in Art. 18 (2) of this Directive have not been met at the time of the application for the payment account.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 23

~~Article 23~~ Delegated ~~acts The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 24 concerning Article 3(4).~~

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 24

Article 24 Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 23 shall be conferred for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Directive. 3. The delegation of powers referred to in Article 23 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 23 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.Deleted

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON

Proposal for a directive
Article 28 – paragraph 1

1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [~~one~~two years after entry into force of this Directive] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.

2013/09/10
Committee: ECON