Activities of Olle SCHMIDT related to 2012/2040(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments
Amendments (22)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)
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 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
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 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
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 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
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 raisePoints out that a safe, trustable and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market, emphases the importance of information campaigns for consumers‘ awareness and overcome ungrounded worries about these forms of paymentsof the options available on the market;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
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 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. StressNotes that in order to enable the full development of thethe introduction of chip cards have had a positive effect on the security of card payments, stresses that in order to reach the full potentialities of electronic payments, the maximum level of security should be ensured as a safeguard against the risk of fraud, and in order to the protect consumers‘ sensitive dataconsumer confidence is essential and that personal data must be handled with high level of security;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
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 electronNotes that the European market for cards, internet and mobile payments is fragmented both across and within national borders, believes that standardisation at European level is needed to enhance the competitiveness of the market for electronic payments in the EU; welcomes a framework that establishes security standards and transparency in costs with a broad market solution including also service payments, and that regulates all the actors involved in the provision of payment servroviders not engaged in fractional-reserve banking such as money transmitters, stresses in this context the importance of clear rules on safety and on consumer protection policies as well as all intermediarieon an European level, believes that in this regard, consumer friendly point of contacts would enhance the trust in remote payments;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. BelievNotes that domestic and cross- boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised and progressively bare very differentiated and sometimes higher than ned by a fixed deadline and thatcessary, believes that these fees and, in parallel, surcharges, rebates and other steering practices shouldmight be progressively banned as wellharmonised in its implementation of the Payment Service Directive, paving the way for a more transparent European single market of payments;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Affirms that a self-regulatory approach is not sufficient; considers that the Commission and ECB should take a more active and leading role in the SEPA governance and that all relevant stakeholders, in particularcluding associations of consumers, should be properly involved and consulted in the decision making process.
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
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 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
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 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
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;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
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 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
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 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
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;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
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 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
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;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
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 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
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;