Activities of Jean-Paul BESSET related to 2013/0264(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
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 (83)
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In recent years, significant progress has been achieveddevelopment on integrating retail payments in the Union, in particular in the context ofhas been achieved in the Union, with the Union acts on payments, notably: Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council19, Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council20, Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council21, and Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council22. Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council23 has further complemented the legal framework for payment services by setting a specific limit on the possibility for retailers to surcharge their customers for the use of a certain means of payment. __________________ 19 Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market (OJ L 319, 5.12.2007, p. 1). 20 Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11). 21 Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC (OJ L 267, 10.10.2009, p. 7). 22 Regulation (EC) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.03.2012, p. 22). 23 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64).
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Directive 2007/64/EC has been adopted in December 2007 on the basis of a Commission proposal of December 2005. Since then, the retail payments market has experienced significant technical innovations with the rapid growth in the number of electronic and mobile payments and the emergence of new types of payments services in the market place, challenging the current framework.
Amendment 121 #
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, safe 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. __________________ 24 COM(2012) 941 final. COM(2012) 941 final.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) Establishing an integrated single market for safe electronic payments is crucial in order to ensure that consumers, merchants and companies enjoy choice and transparency of payment services to benefit from the full benefits of the internal market, given the development of the digital economy.
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) In recent years, the security risks related to electronic payments have increased, which is due to legal unclarity, inconsistent application of the legislative framework across the Union, the greater technical complexity ofinnovation in electronic payments, the phase in continuously growing volumes of electronic payments worldwide and the emerging speed of new types of payment services. As safe, transparent and secure payment services constitute a vital condition for a well- functioning payment services markeproduct in addition to traditional cash payment, users of payment services should be adequately protected against suchecurity risks. Payment services are essentialhave developed to a major industry and consumers, merchants and companies have become dependent on payment services for the maintenance of vital economic and societal activities and therefore payment services providers such as credit institutions have been qualified as market operators according to Article 3(8) of Directive [pls insert number of NIS Directive after adoption] of the European Parliament and of the Council25 . . __________________ 25 Directive XXXX/XX/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of [date] concerning measures to ensure a high common level of network and information security across the Union (OJ L x, p x).
Amendment 132 #
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 the choice of technical system to offer payment transactions should also be addressed at the level of the payment service providers and for their cost and responsibility. The security measures to be taken by the payment service providers need to be in proportionate to the security risks concerned for their clients. A regular reporting mechanism should be established, so as to ensure payment services should provide the competent authorities on an annual basisat least 3 times a year with updated information on the assessment of their security risks and the (additional) measures that they have taken in response to reduce 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, which should publish a report on ‘Security of Digital Payment Services in the European Union’ every year..
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The definitions of payment services, payment protocols and standards should be technologically neutral and allow for the further development of new types of payment services, while ensuring equivalent operating conditions for both existing and new payment service providers.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) The definition of payment services should be technologically neutral and allow for the further development of new types of payment services, while ensuring equivalent safe operating conditions for both existing and new payment service providers.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) The exemption of payment transactions through a commercial agent on behalf of the payer or the payee, as established in Directive 2007/64/EC is being applied very differently in the Member States and should not be continued. Certain Member States have allow the use of the exemption by e- commerce platforms that act as an intermediary on behalf of both individual buyers and sellers without a real margin to negotiate or conclude the sale or purchase of goods or services. That goewas beyond the intended scope of the exemption and may increase risks for the consumers, as these providers remain outside the protection of the legal framework. Different application practices also distort competition in the payment market. The definition should become more precise and clearer to address these concerns.
Amendment 141 #
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 and the exception should not be continued. 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 store or chain of stores, or for a limited 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 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 147 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Service providers seeking to benefit from an exemption under Directive 2007/64/EC often do not consult authorities on whether their activities are covered or exempted under that Directive but rely on their own assessments. It appears that some exemptions may have been used by payment service providers to redesign business models so that the payment activities offered would be outside the scope of that Directive. This may result in increased risks for payment service users and diverging conditions for payment service providers in the internal market. Service providers should therefore be obliged to notify certaintheir activities to the competent authorities, to ensure a homogenous interpretation of the rules throughout the internal market.
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) The availability of accurate, updated information on the name and address should be enhanced by requiring payment institutions to inform the competent authority of their home state without undue delay of any changes affecting the accuracy of the information and evidence provided with regard to the authorisation, including additional agents, branches or entities to which activities are outsourced. The competent authorities should also verify, in case of doubts, that the information received is correct. Information or documents made by competent authorities of the Member States should be motivated by formal decision, specifying the legal basis of the decision, the purpose of the request, what information is required and the time-limit of the provision and the custody of the information or the document.
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) It is essential for any payment service provider to be able to access the services of technical infrastructures of payment systems. Such access should, however, be subject to appropriate requirements in order to ensure integrity and stability of those systems. Each payment service provider applying for a participation in a payment system should bear the risk of its own choice of system and furnish proof to the participants of the payment system that its internal arrangements are sufficiently robust against all kinds of risk and fraudulent misuse by a third party due to the choice of operating systems. These payment systems typically include e.g. the four-party card schemes as well as major systems processing credit transfers and direct debits. In order to ensure equality of treatment throughout the Union as between the different categories of authorised payment service providers, according to the terms of their licence, it is necessary to clarify the rules concerning access to the provision of payment services and access to payment systems.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) Provision should be made for the non- discriminatory treatment of authorised payment institutions and credit institutions so that any payment service provider competing in the internal market is able to use the services of the technical infrastructures of these payment systems under the same conditions. It is appropriate to provide for different treatment for authorised payment service providers and for those benefiting from a waiver under this Directive as well as from the waiver under the Article 3 of Directive 2009/110/EC, due to the differences in their respective prudential framework. In any case, differences in price conditions should be allowed only where this is motivated by documented differences in costs incurred by the payment service providers. This should be without prejudice to Member States’ right to limit access to systemically important systems in accordance with Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council32 and without prejudice to the competence of the European Central Bank and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) concerning access to payment systems. __________________ 32 Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.06.98, p. 45)the competence of the European Central Bank and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) concerning access to payment systems.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) In certain cases, Member States have granted indirect access to specific payment service providers to designated payment systems, in analogy to the provisions of Directive 98/26/EC. This decision is at the discretion of the Member State concerned. However, to ensure fairno infringements to the Unions competition law between payment service providers, this Directive should provide othat where a Member State has granted a payment service provider indirect access to such systems, other payment service providers which are in the same situation should be benefit from the same, non-discriminatory treatmener payment service providers to benefit from the same, non- discriminatory treatment due to the fact that payment services have developed to a major industry and consumers, merchants and companies have become dependent on payment services for the maintenance of vital economic, societal activities and to successfully be able to participate in the internal market.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) In single payment transactions only the essential information should always be given on the payment service provider’s own initiative. As the payer is usually present when he gives the payment order, it is not necessary to require that information should in every case be provided on paper or on another durable medium. The payment service provider may give information orally over the counter or make it otherwise easily accessible, for example by keeping the conditions on a notice board on the premisThe information should in every case be provided on paper or on another durable medium due to the increased digitalisation of the payment services. Information should also be given on where other more detailed information is available (e.g. the address of the website). However, if the consumer so requests, the essential information should be given on paper or on another durable medium.
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) This Directive should provide for the consumer’s right to receive relevant information free of charge before being bound by any payment service contract. The consumer should also be able to requestpresented prior information as well as the framework contract, on paper, free of charge at any time during the contractual relationship, so as to enable them to compare payment service providers’ services and their conditions and in case of any dispute verify their contractual rights and obligations. Those provisions should be compatible with Directive 2002/65/EC. The explicit provisions on free information in this Directive should not have the effect of allowing charges to be imposed for the provision of information to consumers under other applicable Directives.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) The way in which the required information is to be given by the payment service provider to the payment service user should take into account the needs of the latter as well as practical technical aspects and cost-efficiency depending on the situation with regard to the agreement in the respective payment service contract. Thus, this Directive should distinguish between two ways in which information is to be given by the payment service provider: either the information should be provided, i.e. actively communicated by the payment service provider at the appropriate time as required by this Directive without further prompting by the payment service user, or the information should be made available to the payment service user, taking into account any request he may have for further information. In the latter case, the payment service usprovider should take some active steps in order to obtainfor the information, such as to be available, without the payment service user requesting it explicitly from the payment service provider,; logging into bank account mail box or inserting a bank card into printer for account statements. For such purposes the payment service provider should ensure that access to the information is possible and free of charge and that the information is always available to the payment service user.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 48
Recital 48
(48) The consumer should receive basic information on executed payment transactions for no additional charge. In the case of a single payment transaction the payment service provider should not charge separately for this information. Similarly, the subsequent monthly information on payment transactions under a framework contract should be given free of charge. However, taking into account the importance of transparency in pricing and differing customer needs, the parties should be able to agree on charges for more frequent or additional information. In order to take into account different national practices, Member States should be allowed to set rules requiring that monthly paper-based statements of payment accounts are always to be given free of charge.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 49
Recital 49
(49) In order to facilitate customer mobility, it should be possible for consumers to terminate a framework contract after a year 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 twohree 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 182 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 50
Recital 50
(50) Low value payment instruments should be a cheap and easy-to-use alternative in the case of low-priced goods and services and should not be overburdened by excessive requirements. The relevant information requirements and rules on their execution should therefore be limited to essential information as account owner and address, taking also into account technical capabilities that can justifiably be expected from instruments dedicated to low value payments. Despite the lighter regime payment service users should benefit from adequate protection considering the limited risks posed by those payment instruments, especially with regard to prepaid payment instruments.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 53
Recital 53
(53) In order to reduce theaccommodate the payment service provider’s risks and consequences of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions the payment service user should inform the payment service provider as soon as possible about any contestations concerningthe allegedly unauthorised or the incorrectly executed payment transactions provided that the payment service provider has fulfilled its information obligations under this Directive. If the notification deadline iThis Directive should not affect other claims mbet by theween payment service user, it should be able to pursue those claims within the prescription periods pursuant to national law. This Directive should not affect other claims between payment service users ands and payment service providers. Member States should ensure that the personalised security features, used by the payment service user to access his online banking application, are not used to initiate payment orders through third party payment service providers.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 54
Recital 54
(54) In the case of unauthorized payment transactions the payer should be refunded immediatelyon the same day it has been made aware of 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 unreduce delay, the provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions from the payment service provider, 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 and choice of technical systems.
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 55
Recital 55
(55) In order to assess possible negligencefraud by the payment service user, account should be taken of all the circumstances. The evidence and degree of alleged negligencethe fraud or possible fraud, should generally be evaluated according to the general legal definition of fraud in national law. Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of a payment instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered null and void. Moreover, in specific situations and notably where the payment instrument is not present at the point of sale, such as in the case of online payments over the internet, it is appropriate thatthe payment service provider have to provide the information of whom, how and where the possible fraud by a third person was committed and the actions taken by the payment service provider isto required to provide evidence of alleged negligenceduce the risks and avoid repeated breaches since the payer’s means are very limited to do so in such cases.
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 56
Recital 56
(56) Provisions should be made for the allocation of losses in the case of unauthorised payment transactions. Except for cases of fraud and gross negligence, a consumer should never be obliged to pay more than a maximum of 50 EUR in case of an unauthorised transaction from his account. Different provisions may apply to payment service users who are not consumers, since such users are normally in a better position to assess the risk of fraud and take countervailing measures.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 59
Recital 59
(59) In view of the speed with which modern fullymodern automated payment systems process payment transactions, which means that after a certain point in time payment orders cannot be revoked without high manual intervention costs, it is necessary to specify a clear deadline for payment revocations. However, depending on the type of the payment service and the payment order, the point in time may be varied by agreement between the partieit is necessary to specify a clear deadline for payment revocations. Revocation, in this context, should be applicable only to the relationship between a payment service user and payment service provider, thus being without prejudice to the irrevocability and finality of payment transactions in payment systems.
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 60
Recital 60
(60) Such irrevocability should not affect a payment service provider’s right or obligation under the laws of some Member States, based on the payer’s framework contract or national laws, regulations, administrative provisions or guidelines, to reimburse the payer with the amount of the executed payment transaction in the event of a dispute between the payer and the payee. Such reimbursement should be considered to be a new payment order. Except for those cases, legal disputes arising within the relationship underlying the payment order should be settled only between the payer and the payee.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 68
Recital 68
(68) The payer’s payment service provider should assume liability for correct payment execution, including, in particular the full amount of the payment transaction and execution time, and full responsibility for any failure by other parties in the payment chain up to the account of the payee. As a result of that liability the payment service provider of the payer should, where the full amount is not or only late credited to the payee’s payment service provider, correct the payment transaction or without undue delay refund to the payer the same day as the payment service provider became aware of the error, the relevant amount of that transaction, without prejudice to any other claims which may be made in accordance with national law. Due to the payment service provider’s liability, the payer or payee should not be burdened with any costs related to the incorrect payment. In case of non-execution, defective or late execution of payment transactions, Member States should ensure that the value date of corrective payments of payment service providers is always the same as the value date in case of correct execution. Opponents of unconditional refund stress a risk of abuse by consumers. There is no evidence from countries where consumers enjoy an unconditional refund, the right is abused. If abused it would be penalised as renewed payment claim by the payee, extra costs paid by the party which has caused this R-transaction, the consumer being blacklisted or banned to use the service by cancellation of the underlying contract, and a recall of a payment would not relieve the duty to pay for the consumed goods.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 72 a (new)
Recital 72 a (new)
(72a) The security incidents reporting obligations are without prejudice to other incident reporting obligations set forth in other legislation, in particular the personal data breaches requirements set forth under data protection law (in Directive 2002/58/EC and in the proposed [General Data Protection Regulation...] and the security incidents notification requirements planned under the proposed [Directive on Network and Information Security].
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 80 a (new)
Recital 80 a (new)
(80a) In order for payment services to work smoothly and for the wider SEPA project to achieve its full potential, it is vital that all stakeholders and especially users, including consumers, are closely involved and can play a full role. While the establishment of the SEPA Governance Body represents a step forward to the governance of SEPA and further payment services, due to its improved representation of stakeholders, the decision-making on payment services is still biased towards the supply side and in particular European banks through the European Payments Council (EPC). Therefore, it is crucial that the Commission will review, inter alia, the composition of the EPC, the interaction between the EPC and an overarching governance structure, such as the EPA Council, and the role of this overarching structure. If the Commission assessment confirms the need for further initiatives to improve SEPA Governance, the Commission shall consider making proposals.
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g – point vi
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point g – point vi
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 233 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point l
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 21
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 21
21. ‘authentication’ means a procedure 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;
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 24
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point 24
24. ‘unique identifier’ means a combination of letters, numbers or symbols specified to the payment service user by the payment service provider and to be provided by the payment service user to identify unambiguously the other payment service user and/or the payment account and account owner of that other payment service user for a payment transaction;
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
The payment institution’s own funds shall amount to at least the sum of the following elements multiplied by the scaling factor k defined in paragraph 2, where payment volume (PV) represents one twelfth of the total amount of payment transactions executed or initiated by the payment institution in the preceding year:
Amendment 296 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 22 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Any request for information or documents made by competent authorities of the Member States shall be motivated by formal decision, specifying the legal basis of the decision, the purpose of the request, what information is required and the time-limit of the provision and the retention of the information or the document.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. The competent authorities of the different Member States shall cooperate with each other and, where appropriate, with the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States, EBA and other relevant competent authorities designated under Union or national legislation applicable to payment service providers. In case these authorities are processing personal data, they should specify for which precise purpose and mention the appropriate Union legal basis.
Amendment 299 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 3
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 3
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The competent authorities shall provide each other with all essential and/or relevant information, in particular in the case of infringements or suspected infringements by an agent, a branch or an entity to which activities are outsourced. In this regard, the competent authorities shall communicate, upon request, all relevant information and, on their own initiative, all essential information. In case of retention of personal data, the storage of personal data by competent authorities shall not exceed ten years. In any event, the storage of personal data shall comply with Directive 95/46/EC.
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 26 – paragraph 5
Article 26 – paragraph 5
5. EBA shall issue guidelines addressed to competent authorities in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 on the elements to be taken into consideration when deciding whether the activity the payment institution notified intends to provide in another Member State under paragraph 1 of this Article would amount to the exercise of the right of establishment or freedom to provide services. Those guidelines shall be issued by […within two year12 months of the date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 309 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 29 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 316 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 33 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 33 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that consumers who switch their payment account, upon request can receive the transactions carried out on the former payment account recorded on a durable medium from the transferring payment service provider for a reasonable fee.
Amendment 318 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Article 34 – paragraph 1
Member States may stipulshall state that the burden of proof shallto lie with the payment service provider to prove that it has complied with the information requirements set out in this Title.
Amendment 320 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 35 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In cases of payment instruments which, according to the framework contract, concern only sindividualgle payment transactions that do not exceed a total of EUR 310 per month or that either have a spending limit of EUR 1500 per month or store funds that do not exceed EUR 150 at any time:
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 39 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Where a third party payment service provider, at the request of the payer, initiates a payment order, it shall provide or make available to the payer and, where applicable, the payee, immediately after initiation, the following data in a clear and non-ambiguous manner:
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 48 – paragraph 2
Article 48 – paragraph 2
2. Termination of a framework contract concluded for a fixed period exceeding 12 months or for an indefinite period shall be free of charge for the payment service user after the expiry of 12 months. In all other cases charges for the termination shall be appropriate and in line with costsshall be free of charge for the payment service user.
Amendment 341 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 50 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) a reference enabling the payer to identify each payment transaction and, where appropriate, information relating torelating to the name and address of the payee;
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 53 – paragraph 2
Article 53 – paragraph 2
Amendment 363 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 3
Article 55 – paragraph 3
3. The payment service provider shall not prevent the payee fromee shall not be authorised to 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 using any means of payment. The payment service provider shall not prevent the payee from offering the payer a reduction for the use the specificof a given payment instrument providing it does not result in a reverse surcharge.
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 55 – paragraph 4
Article 55 – paragraph 4
Amendment 381 #
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 the payment transaction with the account servicinge and the payment service provider.
Amendment 395 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) to ensure that the third- party payment provider or other parties do not access the personalised security features of the payment service user are not accessible to other parties;
Amendment 398 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
(aa) Member States shall ensure that the personalised security features, used by the payment service user to access his online banking application, are not used to initiate payment orders through third party payment service providers. The account servicing payment service provider shall provide the payment service user with different personalised security features to be exclusively used for payment transactions initiated through third party payment service providers.
Amendment 404 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 58 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) to authenticate itself in an unequivocal manner and according to Article 87 paragraph 2 towards the account servicing payment service provider(s) of the account owner.
Amendment 432 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The payment service user entitled to use a payment instrument shall have the following obligations:ould;
Amendment 433 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) to use the payment instrument in accordance with the objective, non- discriminatory and proportionate terms governing the issue and use of the payment instrument;
Amendment 434 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 61 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) to notify the payment service provider, or the entity specified by the latter or payment service provider, without undue delay on becoming aware of the loss, the theft or the misappropriation of the payment instrument or of itsthe unauthorised use.
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 65 – paragraph 1
Article 65 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, wWithout prejudice to Article 63, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payer's payment service provider refunds to the payer immediately the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction on the same day it has been made aware of the 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 469 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 66 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
The payer shall bear all the losses relating to any unauthorised payment transactions if incurred by acting fraudulently or by failing to fulfil one or more of the obligations set out in Article 61 with intent or gross negligence. In such cases, the maximum amount referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply. For payments via a distance communication where the payment service provider does not require strong customer authentication, the payer shall only bear any financial consequences where having acted fraudulently. Should the payee or the payment service provider of the payee fail to accept strong customer authentication, they shall refund the financial damage caused to the payer's payment service provider.
Amendment 472 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 66 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 66 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. 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 paragraphs 1 and 2 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 476 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66 a (new)
Article 66 a Payment transactions where the transaction amount is not known in advance: 1. For payment transactions, where the transaction amount is not known at the moment of the purchase, Member States shall set the maximum amount of funds which may be blocked on the payer's payment account and maximum time limits for which the funds may be blocked by the payee. 2. The payee shall be required to inform the payer prior to the transaction if funds exceeding the amount of the purchase would be blocked on the payer's payment account. 3. If funds exceeding the amount of the purchase have been blocked on the payer's payment account, this information shall be provided to the payer by his payment services provider in the account statement.
Amendment 478 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Amendment 481 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Amendment 487 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 67 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 499 #
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 503 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 68 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 68 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 507 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 69 – paragraph 1
Article 69 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the point in time of receipt is the time when the payment order initiated directly by the payer or on his behalf by a third party payment service provider or indirectly by or through a payee is received by the payer's payment service provider. The point in time of receipt cannot be later than the point in time of debiting the payer's account. If the point in time of receipt is not on a business day for the payer's payment service provider, the payment order shall be deemed to have been received on the following business day. The payment service provider may establish a cut-off time near the end of a business day beyond which any payment order received shall be deemed to have been received on the following business day.
Amendment 531 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 84 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 84 – paragraph 1 a (new)
In particular, any provider, agent, user processing personal data should only access, process and retain personal data that are necessary for the performance of its payments services.
Amendment 533 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 84 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 84 – paragraph 1 b (new)
The documents referred to in Article 5 point (j) should, among others, also specify the measures aimed to respect the principles of security and confidentiality and to implement the principle of privacy by design and privacy by default.
Amendment 544 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 85 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 85 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States shall ensure that payment service providers regularly provide data on fraud related to different means of payment to national competent authorities and to EBA.
Amendment 568 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 89 – paragraph 3
Article 89 – paragraph 3
3. In the event of infringement or suspected infringement of the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to Titles III and IV, the competent authorities referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be those of the homest Member State of the payment service provider, except for agents and branches conducted under the right of establishment where the competent authorities shall be those of the host Member State.
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 91 – paragraph 1
Article 91 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that independent, adequate 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 575 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 91 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 91 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that payment service providers adhere to one or more ADR bodies.
Amendment 578 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 92 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 92 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. EBA shall be in charge of issuing guidelines to ensure sanctions are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Amendment 586 #
Proposal for a directive
Title 5 a (new)
Title 5 a (new)
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a directive
Annex 1 – point 7 a (new)
Annex 1 – point 7 a (new)
7a. Electronic money as defined in Directive 2009/110/EC on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions.