BETA

Activities of Ivari PADAR related to 2012/2040(INI)

Shadow reports (1)

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

Amendments (22)

Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Expresses concern at unduly tight regulation of internet and mobile payment markets at this stage because such payment methods are still in the process of development; asks the Commission to adopt a radically different andn appropriate approach to these new payment methods in any future proposal, ensuring high level consumer protection, especially for vulnerable consumers;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Recalls that each payment method has its costs; asks the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost of cash payments for all market players compared to other payment methods;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Stresses that actions towards common technical standards shall be taken in the light of the importance, effectiveness and sufficiency of the standards currently in place in Europe;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
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; hence recommends that standards must be open to allow for innovation and competition in the market, as mandating a single or closed standard would limit market development and innovation, impose a disproportionate restriction, and would not be conducive to a competitive level playing field;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Underlines that, given the fast growing but, at present, immature phase of market development for electronic and mobile payments, imposing mandatory standards in these key areas for the enhancement of the digital single market in Europe would entail the risk of negative effects for innovation, competition and market growth;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Calls on the European Commission to propose legislation on SEPA governance, covering the main features of payment services, legal aspects, including consumer rights and competition rules, while the development of technical and security standards would be the tool to support the implementation of the legislation;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness of the European payments market and should not impose unnecessary barriers in comparison with the global market; furthermore believes that common standards should be sought primarily at global level, in close cooperation with the key economic partners of the EU;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
10. Considers that MIFs can currently be justified as a means to finance the four- party card payment systems; nNotes that the level of MIFs is sometimesusually higher than what the financing of the four- party payment system requires;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to propose a reform of the business model for card payments which satisfies the following criteria: - is transparent and fair, - does not distort competition in the payments market by creating barriers to entry of new market players;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
11. Believes that a maximum level for MIFs should not be imposed by regulation at EU level as this could cause the currently low MIFs available in some Member States to rise closer to the maximum level allowdeleted;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
12. Considers that the transparency of MIFfees should be regulated both in internationalat European and in national schemes, and that this could, together with easier access to cross-border acquiring, lead to lower MIFfees as merchants could freely choose which payment schemes they wish to join;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recalls that Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros points out that no MIF can be applied after 1 February 2017; calls for the same approach for card payments;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses, however, that the lack of transparency on MIFs between merchants and the payment service providers (PSPs) is a more acute problem than the lack of transparency between the consumer and the merchant; believes that information overflow would not bring additional value to consumers and would mean transparency in theory but not in practice;deleted
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Considers that there are crucial differences between the three-party and business model for three-party schemes may raise competition issues similar to those of four-party payment schemes and that each scheme should be treated according to its specificities, though ultimately in an equal manner;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that co-badging could be beneficial to consumers as it would result in fewer cards and a wider range of choices, and would encourage competition; however, points out that co-badging should not be used as a bypass for domestic schemes by a pre-decided use of the domestic brand;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses that the customer and the issuing PSP should mutually agree on co- badging and that it should not be made mandatory, while the ultimate choice of brands on the payment card should belong to the consumer;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
17. Welcomes the ban on surcharges for the use of card payments in some Member States; calls on other Member States to consider requiring more transparency on surcharges in order to ensure that the customer knows how much of the surcharge comes from, for example, the MIF and how much is further imposed by the merchant Commission to propose a general ban on surcharging at EU level for all payment services;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Notes that surcharging solely based on the payment choice made by a customer risks to be arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than covering cost, and overall is not beneficial to the development of the single market, as it inhibits competition and increases market fragmentation and confusion for the consumer;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
18. Considers that limiting surcharges to the direct cost of using a payment instrument can be beneficial; stresses, however, that allowing or banning surcharging should ultimately be left to the Member States to decide;deleted
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
20. Considers that the security of face-to- face card payments is already high and the gradual change from magnetic cards to chip cards will improve the level of security even further;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
23. Does not, therefore, support third-party access to a customer's bank account information before secure systems are developed, built andunless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested; notes that in any future regulation special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights; considers, in particular, that it should be clearly specified which parties can have access to which information and under which conditions the data can be stored and that these provisions need to be subject to a contractual relationship between the entities involved;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23a. Believes that consumer refund rights should be strengthened, both in the case of unauthorised payments and in the case of undelivered (or non delivered as promised) goods or services, and that effective Collective Redress and Alternative Dispute Resolution systems are indispensable tools for the protection of consumers, also in the field of electronic payments;
2012/07/12
Committee: ECON