Activities of Olle LUDVIGSSON related to 2013/0264(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Payment services in the internal market (debate) SV
Shadow reports (2)
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC PDF (1 MB) DOC (771 KB)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC PDF (661 KB) DOC (792 KB)
Amendments (61)
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The review of the Union legal framework on payment services and notably the analysis of the impact of Directive 2007/64/EC and the consultation on the Commission Green Paper ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’24 have shown that developments have given rise to important challenges from a regulatory perspective. Important areas of the payments market, in particular card payments, internet and mobile payments are often still fragmented along national borders. Many innovative payment products or services do not fall, entirely or in large parts, under the scope of Directive 2007/64/EC. Furthermore, the scope of Directive 2007/64/EC and in particular, the elements excluded therefrom, as certain payment-related activities from the general rules, proved in a few cases too ambiguous, too general or simply outdated, taking into account the market developments. This has resulted in legal uncertainty, potential security risks in the payment chain and a lack of consumer protection in certain areas. For innovative and easy-to-use digital payment services it has proven to be difficult to take off and provide consumers and retailers with effective, convenient and secure payment methods in the Union. There is a large positive potential in this which needs to be more consistently exploited. __________________ 24 COM(2012) 941 final.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) New rules should be provided in order to close the regulatory gaps while at the same time providing for more legal clarity and ensuring a consistent application of the legislative framework across the Union. Equivalent operating conditions should be guaranteed to both existing and new players on the market, facilitating new means of payment to reach a broader market and ensuring a high level of consumer protection in the use of these payment services across the whole of the Union. This should generate efficiencies in the payment system as a whole and should lead to a downward trend in costs and prices for payment services users and more choice and transparency of payment services.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5 a (new)
Recital 5 a (new)
(5a) The recent establishment of the Euro Retail Payments Board (ERPB), the successor of the SEPA Council, is a positive step forward in strengthening SEPA governance. With a broader composition and mandate than its predecessor, the ERPB has the potential to substantially enhance the development of an integrated, innovative and competitive market for retail payments in euro throughout the Union. This potential should be used to the full. The Commission should take very active part in the work of the ERPB.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) In addition to the general measures to be taken at Member States’ level in Directive [pls insert number of NIS Directive after adoption], the security risks related to payment transactions should also be addressed at the level of the payment service providers. The security measures to be taken by the payment service providers need to be proportionate to the security risks concerned. A regular reporting mechanism should be established, so as to ensure payment services should provide the competent authorities at least on an annual basis with updated information on the assessment of their security risks and the (additional) measures that they have taken in response to these risks. Furthermore, in order to ensure that damages to other payment service providers and payment systems, such as a substantial disruption of a payment system and to users is kept to a minimum, it is essential that payment service providers have the obligation to report within undue delay major security incidents to the European Banking Authority.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) In order to avoid divergent approaches across Member States to the detriment of consumers, the provisions on transparency and information requirements for payment service providers in this Directive should also apply to transactions where the payer’s or payee’s payment service provider is located within the European Economic Area (hereinafter ‘EEA’) and the other payment service provider is located outside the EEA. On the basis of a review and a proposal from the Commission, the application of this Directive to such transactions should also be extended to include the major part of the provisions on rights and obligations in relation to providing and using payment services. It is also appropriate to extend the application of transparency and information provisions to transactions in all currencies between payment service providers that are located within the EEA.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Feedback from the market shows that the payment activities covered by the limited network exception often comprise massive payment volumes and values and offer to consumers hundreds or thousands of different products and services, which does not fit the purpose of the limited network exemption as provided for in Directive 2007/64/EC. That implies greater risks and no legal protection for payment service users, in particular for consumers and clear disadvantages for regulated market actors. A more precise description of a limited network, in line with Directive 2009/110/EC, is necessary in order to limit those risks. A payment instrument should thus be considered to be used within such a limited network if it can be used only either for the purchase of goods and services in a specific physical or web- based store or chain of stores, or for a limitedvery narrow range of goods or services, regardless of the geographical location of the point of sale. Such instruments could include store cards, petrol cards, membership cards, public transport cards, meal vouchers or vouchers for specific services, which are sometimes subject to a specific tax or labour legal framework designed to promote the use of such instruments to meet the objectives laid down in social legislation. Where such a specific-purpose instrument develops into a general purpose instrument, the exemption from the scope of this Directive should no longer apply. Instruments which can be used for purchases in physical or web- based stores of listed merchants should not be exempted from the scope of this Directive as such instruments are typically designed for a network of service providers which is continuously growing. The exemption should apply in combination with the obligation of potential payment service providers to notify activities falling within the scope of the definition of a limited network.
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) Directive 2007/64/EC exempts from its scope certain payment transactions by means of telecom or information technology devices where the network operator not only acts as an intermediary for the delivery of digital goods and services through the device in question, but also adds value to these goods or services. In particular, this exemption allows for so called operator billing or direct to phone- bill purchases which, starting with ringing tones and premium SMS-services, contributes to the development of new business models based on low-value sale of digital content. Feedback from the market shows no evidence that this payment method, trusted by consumers as convenient for low threshold payments, has developed into a general payment intermediation service. However, due to the ambiguous wording of the current exemption, this rule has been implemented differently in Member States. This translates into lack of legal certainty for operators and consumers and has occasionally allowed other payment intermediation services to claim eligibility for the exemption of the application of Directive 2007/64/EC. It is therefore appropriate to narrow down the negative scope of that Directive. TIn order not to leave large-scale payment activities unregulated, the exemption should focus specifically on micro-payments for digital content, such as ringtones, wallpapers, music, games, videos, or applications. The exemption should only apply to payment services when provided as ancillary services to electronic communications services (i.e. the core business of the operator concerned).
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Since the adoption of Directive 2007/64/EC new types of payment services have emerged, especially in the area of internet payments. In particular, third party providers (hereinafter ‘TPPs’) have evolved, offering so-called payment initiation services to consumers and merchants, often without entering into the possession of the funds to be transferred. Those services facilitate the e-commerce payments by establishing a software bridge between the website of the merchant and the online banking platform of the consumer in order to initiate internet payments on the basis of credit transfers or direct debits. The TPPs offer a low-cost alternative to card payments for both merchants and consumers and provide consumers a possibility to shop online even if they do not possess credit cardspayment cards. The TPPs also have a promising potential when it comes to facilitating cross-border e-commerce in the internal market. However, as TPPs are currently not subject to Directive 2007/64/EC, they are not necessarily supervised by a competent authority and do not follow the requirements of Directive 2007/64/EC. This raises a series of legal issues, such as consumer protection, security and liability as well as competition and data protection issues. The new rules should therefore respond to those issues.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Payment service providers when engaging in the provision of one or more of the payment services covered by this Directive should always hold payment accounts used exclusively for payment transactions. For payment institutions to be able to provide payment services, it is indispensable that they have access to payment accounts. Member States should ensure that such access is non- discriminatory and provided in a way proportionate to the legitimate aim it intends to serve. While the access could be basic, it should always be extensive enough for the payment institution to be able to provide its services in an unobstructed and efficient way. The fees charged for such access should not be unreasonable or out of line with standard business practice.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) In order to facilitate customer mobility and thereby enhance competition, it should be possible for consumers to terminate a framework contract after a yearsix months without incurring charges. For consumers, the period of notice agreed should be no longer than a month, and for payment service providers no shorter than two months. This Directive should be without prejudice to the payment service provider’s obligation to terminate the payment service contract in exceptional circumstances under other relevant Union or national legislation, such as legislation on money laundering and terrorist financing, any action targeting the freezing of funds, or any specific measure linked to the prevention and investigation of crimes.
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 51
Recital 51
(51) It is necessary to set up the criteria under which TPPs are allowed to access and use the information on the availability of funds on the payment service user’s account held with another payment service provider. In particular, necessary data protection and security requirements set or referred to in this Directive or included in the EBA guidelines should be fulfilled by both the TPP and the payment service provider servicing the account of the payment service user. The payers should give an explicit consent to the TPP to access their payment account and be properly informed about the extent of this access. To allow the development of other payment services providers which cannot receive deposits, it is necessary that credit institutionIn addition to TPPs, there are other third party actors in the market which, like the TPPs, cannot receive deposits, but which, unlike the TPPs, build their business models on the issuance of card-based payment instruments. In order to allow for the development of these third party payment instrument issuers, it is necessary that account servicing payment service providers provide them with the information on the availability of funds if the payer has given consent for this information to be communicated to the payment service provider issuer of the payment instrumentm.
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 51 a (new)
Recital 51 a (new)
(51a) In order for innovation to be facilitated and a level playing field to be maintained, TPPs should not be required to enter into contractual relationships with account servicing payment service providers in the context of payment initiation or account information services. TPPs should only have to respect and comply with the general legislative and supervisory framework.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) In the case of unauthorized payment transactions the payer should be refunded immediately, as a maximum within 24 hours of the payment service provider having noted or having been notified about the transactions, the amount of the respective transaction. In order to prevent the payer from any disadvantages, the credit value date of the refund should not be later than the date when the respective amount has been debited. In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, the provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions, the user should be liable only for a very limited amount, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. In this context an amount of EUR 50 seems to be adequate in order to ensure a harmonized and a high level user protection within the Union. Moreover, once users have notified a payment service provider that their payment instrument may have been compromised, the users should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument. This Directive should be without prejudice to the payment service providers’ responsibility for technical security of their own products.
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 57
Recital 57
(57) This Directive should lay down rules for a refund to protect the consumer when the executed payment transaction exceeds the amount which could reasonably have been expected. In order to prevent a financial disadvantage for the payer, it needs to be ensured that the credit value date of any refund is no later than the date when the respective amount has been debited. In the case of direct debits payment service providers should be able to provide even more favourable terms to their customers, who should have an unconditional right to a refund of any disputed payment transactions. However, this unconditional refund right which ensures the highest level of consumer protection is not justified in cases where the merchant has already fulfilled the contract and the corresponding good or service has already been consumed. In cases where the user makes a claim for the refund of a payment transaction refund rights should affect neither the liability of the payer vis-à-vis the payee from the underlying relationship, e.g. for goods or services ordered, consumed or legitimately charged, nor the users rights with regard to revocation of a payment order.
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 63
Recital 63
(63) Different national practices concerning charging for the use of a given payment instrument (hereinafter ‘surcharging’) have led to extreme heterogeneity of the Union’s payments market and become a source of confusion for consumers, in particular in the e- commerce and cross-border context. Merchants located in Member States where surcharging is allowed offer products and services in Member States where it is prohibited and in this case still surcharge the consumer. There are also many examples of merchants having surcharged consumers at levels much higher than the cost borne by the merchant for the use of a specific payment instrument. Moreover, a strong rationale for revision of surcharging practices is supported by the fact that Regulation (EU) No xxx/yyyy establishes rules for multilateral interchange fees for card-based payments. As interchange fees are the main element making most card payments expensive and surcharging is in practice limited to card-based payments, the rules on interchange fees should be accompanied by a revision of surcharging rules. In order to promote cost transparency and the use of the most efficient payment instruments, Member States and payment service providers should not prevenhance the functioning of the Union’s payment market, to reduce the confusion for consumers and to entd the payee from requesting a charge from the payer for using a specific payment instrument, duly taking into account the provisions set out in Directive 2011/83/EU. However, the right of the payee toractice of excessive surcharging, Member States should ban surcharging by consistently preventing payees from requesting a surcharge should only apply tofrom those payment instruments for which interchange fees are not regulated. This should act as a steering mechanism towards the cheapest means of payer for using a specific payment instruments.
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 74
Recital 74
(74) Without prejudice to the right of customers to bring action in the courts, Member States should ensure anthat easily accessible and cost-sensitive out-of-court, independent, impartial, transparent and effective out-of-court procedures are established and maintained for the resolution of conflictdisputes between payment service providers and consumpayment service users arising from the rights and obligations set out in this Directive. Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council40 provides that the protection afforded to consumers by the mandatory rules of the law of the country in which they have their habitual residence may not be undermined by any contractual terms on law applicable. With regard to establishing an efficient and effective dispute resolution procedure, Member States should ensure that payment service providers put in place an effective consumer complaint procedure that can be followed by their consumpayment service users before the dispute is referred to be resolved in an out- of-court procedure or before court. The complaints procedure should contain short and clearly defined timeframes within which the payment service provider should reply to a complaint. __________________ 40 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (ROME I) (OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p.6).
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph a (new)
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k
(k) services based on specific instruments that are designed to address precise needs that can be used only in a limited way, because they allow the specific instrument holder to acquire goods or services only in in the premises of the issuer or within a limited network of service providers under direct commercial agreement with a professional issuer or because they can be used only to acquire a limitedvery narrow range of goods or services;
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) payment transactions carried out by a provider of electronic communication networks or services where the transaction is provided for a subscriber to the network or service and for purchase of digital content as ancillary services to electronic communications services, regardless of the device used for the purchase or consumption of the content, provided that the value of any single payment transaction does not exceed EUR 250 and the cumulative value of payment transactions does not exceed EUR 2100 in any billing month;
Amendment 248 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 21
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 21
21. ‘authentication’ means a procedures which allows the payment service provider to verify the identity of a user of a specific payment instrument, including the use of its personalised security features or the checking of personalised identity documents, or to identify an interacting third party payment service provider;
Amendment 254 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 22
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 22
22. ‘strong customer authentication’ means a procedure for the validation of the identification of a natural or legal person based on the use of two or more elements categorised as knowledge, possession and inherence (something only the user knows), possession (something only the user possesses) and inherence (something the user is) that are independent, in that the breach of one does not compromise the reliability of the others and is designed in such a way as to protect the confidentiality of the authentication data.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 26
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 26
26. ‘payment instrument’ means any personalised device(s) and/or set of procedures agreed between the payment service user and the payment service provider and used by the payment service user, or on its behalf, in order to initiate a payment order;
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 26 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 26 a (new)
26a. ‘card-based payment instrument’ means any payment instrument, including a card, mobile phone, computer or any other technological device containing the appropriate application, used by the payer to initiate a payment order which is not a credit transfer or a direct debit as defined by Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012;
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 26 b (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 26 b (new)
26b. ‘third party payment instrument issuer’ means a payment service provider pursuing business activities referred to in point 5 of Annex I on the basis of card- based payment instruments;
Amendment 268 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 32
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 32
32. ‘payment initiation service’ means a payment service enabling access to a, provided by a third party payment accountservice provided by a third party payment service provider,r, enabling access to a payer’s payment account in a procedure where the payer can be actively involved in the payment initiation or the third party payment service provider’s software, or where payment instruments can be used by the payer or the payee to transmit the payer’s credentials to the account servicing payment service provider;
Amendment 271 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 33
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 33
33. ‘account information service’ means a payment service provided by a third party payment service provider where consolidated and user-friendly information is provided to a payment service user on one or several payment accounts held by the payment service user with one or several account servicing payment service providers;
Amendment 294 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. When payment institutions engage in the provision of one or more of the payment services, they may hold only covered by this Directive, they shall hold payment accounts used exclusively for payment transactions. Member States shall ensure that access to those payment accounts is proportionatell payment institutions are granted non- discriminatory access to payment accounts. The access shall be extensive enough for the payment institution to be able to provide its services in an unobstructed and efficient way.
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 27 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) the average of the preceding 12 months’ total amount of payment transactions executed and/or initiated by the person concerned, including any agent for which it assumes full responsibility, does not exceed EUR 1 million per month. That requirement shall be assessed on the projected total amount of payment transactions in its business plan, unless an adjustment to that plan is required by the competent authorities;
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Member States mayshall stipulate that the burden of proof shall lie with the payment service provider to prove that it has complied with the information requirements set out in this Title.
Amendment 322 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 38 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that for payment initiation services, the third party payment service provider shall provide the payer with clear and comprehensive information about the service offered and contact information to the third party payment service provider.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 48 – paragraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. Termination of a framework contract concluded for a fixed period exceeding 126 months or for an indefinite period shall be free of charge for the payment service user after the expiry of 126 months. In all other cases charges for the termination shall be appropriate and in line with costs.
Amendment 360 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 1
Article 55 – paragraph 1
1. The payment service provider may not charge the payment service user for fulfilment of its information obligations or corrective and preventive measures under this Title, unless otherwise specified in Articles 70(1), 71(5) and 79(24). Those charges shall be agreed between the payment service user and the payment service provider and shall be appropriate and in line with the payment service provider’s actual costs.
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 3
Article 55 – paragraph 3
3. The payment service provider shall not prevent the payee from requesting from the payer a charge, offering him a reduction or otherwise steering him towards the use of a given payment instrument. Any charges applied shall, however, not exceed the costs borne by the payee for the use the specificoffering the payer a reduction for the use of a given payment instrument.
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 4
Article 55 – paragraph 4
4. However, Member States shall ensure that the payee shall not request any charges for the use of a payment instruments for which interchange fees are regulated under Regulation (EU) No [XX/XX/XX/] [OP please insert number of Regulation once adopted].
Amendment 384 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Consent to execute a payment transaction or a series of payment transactions shall be given in the form agreed between the payer and the payment service provider. Consent may also be given directly or indirectly via the payee. Consent to execute a payment transaction shall also be considered given where the payer authorises a third party payment service provider to initiate thea payment transaction with thean account servicing payment service provider servicing an account owned by the payer.
Amendment 387 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 57 – paragraph 4
Article 57 – paragraph 4
4. The procedure for giving consent shall be agreed between the payer and the relevant payment service provider(s). When the payer makes use of a third party payment service provider for initiating a transaction, this procedure shall be agreed between the payer and that third party payment service provider.
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Where a third party payment service provider has been authorised by the payer to provide payment services under paragraph 1, heit shall have the following obligations:
Amendment 403 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) every time a payment is initiated or account information is collected, to authenticate itself in an unequivocal manner towards the account servicing payment service provider(s) of the account owner.
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 58 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. EBA shall, in close cooperation with the ECB, issue guidelines addressed to payment service providers in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 on how, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this Article, the account servicing payment service provider shall notify and inform the third party payment service provider. Those guidelines shall be issued by (insert date - twelve months from the date of entry into force of this Directive) and be updated on a regular basis as appropriate.
Amendment 418 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 4
Article 58 – paragraph 4
4. Account servicing payment service providers shall treat payment orders transmitted through the services of a third party payment service provider without any discrimination for other than objective reasons in terms ofin terms of for example timing and, priority or charges vis- à-vis payment orders transmitted directly by the payer himself.
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 58 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Third party payment service providers shall not be required to enter into contractual relationships with account servicing payment service providers in the context of payment initiation or account information services.
Amendment 426 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 59 – paragraph 1
Article 59 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that a payer has the right to make use of a third party issuer of a card-based payment instrument issuer to obtain payment card services.
Amendment 431 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 59 – paragraph 3
Article 59 – paragraph 3
3. Account servicing payment service providers shall treat payment orders transmitted through the services of a third party payment instrument issuer without any discrimination for other than objective reasons in terms ofin terms of for example timing and, priority in respect ofor charges vis-à-vis payment orders transmitted directly by the payer personallyhimself.
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 63 – paragraph 2
Article 63 – paragraph 2
2. Where a third party payment service provider is involved, the payment service user shall also obtain rectification from the account servicing payment serviceinform the third party payment service provider and notify the account servicing payment service provider. The payment service user shall obtain rectification from the account servicing provider pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, without prejudice to Articles 65(2) and 80(1).
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 64 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 64 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
If the payment transaction has been initiated through a third party payment service provider, the burden shall be on the latter to prove that the payment transaction was not affected by an authentication problem, a technical breakdown or other deficiencies linked to the payment service it is in charge of.
Amendment 457 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, without prejudice to Article 63, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payer's payment service provider refunds to the payer immediately, as a maximum within 24 hours of having noted or having been notified about the transaction, the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction and, where applicable, restores the debited payment account to the state in which it would have been had the unauthorised payment transaction not taken place. This shall also ensure that the credit value date for the payer's payment account shall be no later than the date the amount had been debited.
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 2
Article 65 – paragraph 2
2. Where a third party payment service provider is involved, the account servicing payment service provider shall refund the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction and, where applicable, restore the debited payment account to the state in which it would have been had the unauthorised payment transaction not taken place. Financial compeIf the third party payment service provider cannot demonstrate that the responsibility for the unauthorised payment transaction tolies with the account servicing payment service provider by the third party, it shall without undue delay compensate for the refund by transferring the amount of the transaction to the account servicing payment service provider may be applicable.
Amendment 470 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 66 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 471 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 66 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. In cases where the payer has neither acted fraudulently nor with intent failed to fulfil his obligations under Article 61, Member States may reduce the liability referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, taking into account, in particular, the nature of the personalised security features of the payment instrument and the circumstances under which it was lost, stolen or misappropriated.
Amendment 490 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
At the payment service provider's request, the payer shall bear the burden to proveprovide factual elements relating to such conditions are met.
Amendment 497 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 4
For direct debits the payer has an unconditional right for refund within the time limits set in Article 68, except where the payee has already fulfilled the contractual obligations and the services have already been received or the goods have already been consumed by the payer. At the payment service provider's request, the payee shall bear the burden to prove that the conditions referred to in the third subparagraph.
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 70 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The framework contract may include a condition thatpayment service provider shall not charge the payment service provider may chargeuser for such a notification if the refusal is objectively justified.
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 85 – paragraph 3
Article 85 – paragraph 3
3. Upon receipt of the notification, and where relevant, EBA shall notify the competent authorities in the other Member States involved.
Amendment 542 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 85 – paragraph 4
Article 85 – paragraph 4
4. In addition to the provisions of Article 14(4) of Directive [NIS Directive] [OP please insert number of Directive once adopted], where the security incident has the potential of impacting the financial interests of the payment service users of the payment service provider, it shall without undue delay notify its payment service users of the incident and inform them of possiabout all available mitigation measures that they can take on their side to mitigate the adverse effects of the incident.
Amendment 548 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 86 – paragraph 1
Article 86 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that payment service providers provide to the authority designated under Article 6(1) of Directive [NIS Directive] [OP please insert number of Directive once adopted] on a yearly basis updated and comprehensive information ofn the assessment of the operational and security risks associated with the payment services they provide and on the adequacy of the mitigation measures and control mechanisms implemented in response to these risks. The authority designated under Article 6(1) of Directive [NIS Directive] [OP please insert number of Directive once adopted] shall without undue delay transmit a copy of this information to the competent authority in the home Member State.
Amendment 561 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 87 – paragraph 3
Article 87 – paragraph 3
3. EBA shall, in close cooperation with the ECB, issue guidelines addressed to payment service providers as set out in Article 1(1) of this Directive in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 on how third party payment service providers shall authenticate themselves towards account servicing payment service providers, on state of the art customer authentication and on any exemption to the use of strong customer authentication. Those guidelines shall be issued by (insert date - two yearelve months from the date of entry into force of this Directive) and be updated on a regular basis as appropriate.
Amendment 567 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 89 – paragraph 2
Article 89 – paragraph 2
2. The authorities referred to in paragraph 1 shall possess all the powers and resources necessary for the performance of their duties. Where more than one competent authority is empowered to ensure and monitor effective compliance with this Directive, Member States shall ensure that those authorities collaborate closely so that they can discharge their respective duties effectively.
Amendment 570 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 90 – paragraph 2
Article 90 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall require that payment service providers make every possible effort to reply, in writing, to the payment service users' complaints, addressing all points raised, within an adequate timeframe and at the latest within 15 business days. In exceptional situations, if the answer cannot be given within 15 business days for reasons beyond the control of the payment service provider, it shall be required to send a holding reply, clearly indicating the reasons for a delay in answering to the complaint and specifying the deadline by which the consumer will receive the final reply. That deadline may not, in any case, exceed another 3015 business days.
Amendment 572 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 91 – paragraph 1
Article 91 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that adequate, independent, impartial, transparent and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures for the settlement of disputes between payment service users and payment service providers concerning the rights and obligations arising under this Directive are established according to the relevant national and Union legislation, using existing bodies where appropriate. Member States shall ensure that such procedures are applicable to payment service providers and that they also cover the activities of appointed representatives.
Amendment 577 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 91 – paragraph 2
Article 91 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall require the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 to cooperate for the resolution of cross-border disputes concerning the rights and obligations arising under this Directive. Member States shall ensure that these bodies have sufficient capacity to engage in an adequate and efficient way in such cross- border cooperation.
Amendment 587 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 96 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 96 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Within two years of the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall present a specific report, if appropriate accompanied by a legislative proposal, on the feasibility and desirability of introducing a requirement to make the IBAN, as defined in Article 2(15) of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, or another similar identifier, available in an electronically readable format on debit cards and other relevant payment instruments.