Activites

• 1997/02/14 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Directive 1997/5
  • OJ L 043 14.02.1997, p. 0025
• 1997/01/27 Final act signed
• 1997/01/27 End of procedure in Parliament
• 1997/01/16 Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading
  • T4-0010/1997 summary

    Parliament adopted the report by Mrs Karla PEIJS (PPE, NL) on the joint text for a Directive on cross-border credit transfers. The compromise between Parliament and the Council within the Conciliation Committee fixes at ECU 12.500 the obligation to refund (amount refunded in the case of a non-completed transfer). In this way Parliament seeks to ensure optimum protection for consumers. The other subject of compromise concerns the scope of the Directive and its implementation by the Member States. The EP delegation succeeded in winning over the Council's members to a position close to its own. The Directive will apply to transfers up to ECU 50.000, whereas the common position of the Council provided for a procedure in two stages (ECU 26 000 during the first two years of application and ECU 30 000 thereafter). Regarding the date for implementation, the EP delegation accepted the common position of the Council. The period for implementation of the Directive will be thirty months after its entry into force (instead of the eighteen months called for by Parliament). In a statement, however, the Council undertook to ensure that the Member States did their utmost to have it implemented by not later than 1 January 1999. �

• 1997/01/15 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mrs Peijs (EPP, NL), welcomed the compromise reached with the Council and stated that the new directive should end the practice of banks applying double charges for the same cross-border transfers. In addition, if the transfer was not successfully completed, compensation of up to ECU 12 500 would be paid. The rapporteur then pointed out that some banks already provided euro transfer services (euro transfers). Finally, the Council had undertaken to set 1 January 1999 as the final deadline for the directive’s entry into force in the Member States. Commissioner Marín purely underlined that the positive outcome of the conciliation procedure would not only lead to immediate benefits for financial operators but would also increase transparency in the sector with regard to the public and the requirements of the single market.

• #1983
• 1996/12/20 Council Meeting
• 1996/12/19 Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading
  • A4-0004/1997
• 1996/11/22 Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs
  • 3632/1996
• 1996/11/06 Final decision by Conciliation Committee
• 1996/10/10 Formal meeting of Conciliation Committee
• #1922
• 1996/05/13 Council Meeting
• 1996/03/13 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T4-0117/1996 summary

    In adopting the report by Mrs Karla PEIJS (EPP, NL), the European Parliament amended the common position of the Council as follows: - Enlargement of the scope of the directive: the EP believes that any transfer of no more than ECU 50 000 must be taken into account by the legislation, whilst the Council considered that only transfers of no more than ECU 25 000 (ECU 30 000 two years after the entry into force of the directive) should be covered by the directive; - obligation to refund in the case of a non-completed transfer: whereas the Council provided that the obligation to refund should be made up to ECU 10 000, the EP fixes the amount at ECU 20 000. It also provides for the possibility of Member States and/or institutions deciding on a total refund; - With regard to the conditions of refund, the EP believes that: .the obligation to refund should apply whatever the reason for the non-completed transfer; .redress and complaints procedures must be introduced; .if a decision has not been taken on a complaint within four weeks, complainants may approach one of the complaints offices, a list of addresses of which shall be available at all institutions carrying out cross-border payments. Finally, the report gives the Member States eighteen months (as opposed to thirty by the Council) to comply with the directive. �

• 1996/03/12 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    The rapporteur, Mrs Peijs (EPP, NL), said that in preparing for monetary union the consumers and SMEs should be protected from the risk of excessive charging in the case of cross-border credit transfers. Commissioner Monti announced that the Commission could take over 11 of the 14 amendments: these were Amendments Nos 1 to 9, 11 and 14; it would also accept Nos 10 and 12 in part, but rejected, for technical reasons and for the purpose of legislative consistency, Amendment No 13 relating to the four-week harmonised period for following-up complaints and to the compulsory advertising of the list of those bodies that had been set up to provide help to consumers.

• 1996/02/12 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A4-0033/1996
• 1995/12/14 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #1891
• 1995/12/04 Council Meeting
  • 11262/1/1995 summary

    The common position takes over a large number of the amendments (16) accepted by the Commission in its amended proposal. The Council text: - excludes credit transfers ordered by large professional financial establishments; - does not explicitly define the scope of the directive with reference to credit transfer within the European Union; - applies the directive to credit transfers of less than ECU 25 000 for a period of two years after the date of implementation and to transfers of less than ECU 30 000 after this period; - limits the scope to cross-border credit transfers in the currencies of the Member States and in ecus. - merges the definitions of the terms 'payment', 'crossborder payment' and 'credit transfer' into the single term 'crossborder credit' transfer, which has implications for the entire directive; - amends the definition of the term 'reference interest rate' to cover a more flexible rate; - introduces a definition of the term 'financial institution'; - keeps the basic definition of the term 'intermediary institution'. - with regard to transparency, the common position maintains all the essential features of the amended Commission proposal, whilst indicating the obligations of the institutions in a more precise manner. The common position further stipulates that the information to be given subsequent to the credit transfer must include, in all cases, the original amount of the cross-border credit transfer and an indication of the exchange rate used, where any amount has been converted; - regarding the minimum obligations of institutions, the common position maintains the fundamental features of the Commission proposal, but treats separately the obligations of the originator, the intermediate institution and the beneficiary; - a new Article 5 obliges the institution to give an undertaking to the customer regarding the terms applicable to a specific cross-border credit transfer; - the beneficiary's institution must compensate the beneficiary if the funds have not been credited to his account within the time limit set out in the directive unless the delay is attributable to the beneficiary; - a ceiling of ECU 10 000 is fixed for reimbursement, dependent on a request by the originator. The deadline for reimbursement is fixed at fourteen banking days after the request is made. The refund is limited to the amount of the transfer in case of defective instructions given by the originator; - the common position also includes a separate article relating to 'force majeure' and the settlement of disputes; - the date of implementation of the directive by reference to the date of its entry into force (thirty months). The date of presentation of the Commission's report is brought forward by one year, to no later than two years after the date of implementation of the directive. �

• #1867
• 1995/09/18 Council Meeting
• #1863
• 1995/07/10 Council Meeting
  • 1863 summary

    The Council considered the main problem regarding this proposal for a directive on cross-­border credit transfers, i.e. defining the scope of the directive. This proposal was presented by the Commission in November 1994 after it had become apparent that the banking sector’s ‘voluntary’ approach had failed to produce progress towards a rapid and efficient system of transfers and the elimination of abusive charges. It was in line with both the completion of the internal market and the implementation of EMU, and was part of a broader policy advocated by the Commission to put the system of cross-­border payments within the EU on a par with the best national systems. The question regarding the scope is whether to limit it by setting a ceiling for all provisions of the directive. It proved impossible to find a solution on this basis in view of Member States’ widely divergent positions. In these circumstances the Presidency proposed a dual-ceiling compromise - with a relatively modest amount for the guarantee required from banks for refunding customers in the event of non-execution of transfers, and - a substantially higher amount for the other obligations stemming from the directive. Some progress was made on this basis but no definitive outcome was reached. The Council concluded by instructing Coreper to continue work in order to submit a solution that might be adopted.

• 1995/06/06 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(1995)0264 summary

    The amended proposal took over in full or in part most of the European Parliament's amendments (19 of 21). The main amendments related to the following points: - the term "cross-border transfer" was replaced by the term "EU credit transfer"; - the directive should apply to all credit transfers in the currencies of the Member States and in ecus (the proposal thus continued to apply to all transfers, irrespective of the amount involved); - the establishment of an independent complaints and redress procedure to afford the consumer better protection; such procedures should exist at Member State level with respect to EU credit transfers; - the introduction of a new definition of "interest", based on the rate which the institution would apply to its customer's account if the account was overdrawn; - clarification of the fact that an intermediary institution could only be an institution that participated in the execution of EU credit transfers; - more precise and transparent methods of presenting information to customers (electronic means, details of the costs involved, reference to the applicable exchange rate, information on redress procedures); - clarification with regard to the default arrangements to be implemented, that is, in the absence of an agreement between the institution and its customer; - establishment of a mechanism between institutions whereby an institution that had compensated its customer for late payment was authorised to claim the interest paid out from the institution that caused the delay; - clarification of the principle whereby the beneficiary was compensated by its institution by the payment of interest, where a delay in the availability of funds was attributable to that institution; - authorisation to make deductions when authorised by the originator; - the procedure for the repayment of unauthorised deductions was reversed; - a shorter time limit for payment: 15 days after the request was made by the originator; - in cases where an institution recovered the funds and refunded the originator, the institution was not obliged to refund the charges and interest accruing; - institutions were not bound by their obligations where they could invoke reasons of force majeure. The Commission did not take over the amendments concerning: - the limitation of the scope of the directive to transfers not exceeding ECU 50 000; - the definition of the "completion" of a transfer: this should mean the "acceptance" of the payment by the beneficiary's institution, rather than its "receipt", as proposed by the EP. �

• 1995/05/19 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T4-0262/1995 summary

    Although it approved of the principle of a restrictive directive concerning cross-border transfers, the European Parliament amended the Commission proposal. The main amendment adopted by the EP aimed to clarify that the directive would apply to transfers in the currencies of the Member States and in ecus up to a value of ECU 50 000. The EP also proposed the following: - the institution should provide its customers with information, including by electronic means; - the information should be supplied to customers in standardised format in order to facilitate the comparison of costs; - where the originator's institution was not responsible for the delay, it could claim the costs incurred plus corresponding interest from the institution responsible; - an independent complaints and redress procedure should be established at Member State level, at minimum cost, to afford consumers better protection; - institutions were not bound by the provisions of the directive where they could invoke reasons of force majeure; - any institution involved in an EU payment should take a decision without delay on complaints by its customers. �

• 1995/05/16 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament summary

    Commissioner MONTI outlined the Commission’s position on Parliament’s amendments: Amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 and 22 were taken over in full; Amendments Nos 5, 10, 14, 16, 18 and 21 were taken over in part or in substance. Further details: Amendments Nos 5, 23 and 25 could not be taken over as they changed the scope of the Directive by concentrating solely on payments up to ECU 50 000; Amendment No 10, which introduced a standard format for information to customers, did not take account of the different advertising techniques; Amendment No 14, which limited compensation to cases in which the delay was attributable to the beneficiary’s institution, neglected the responsibility of the agents; Amendments Nos 16 and 18, which deleted the phrase ‘without prejudice to demands for compensation’, left a degree of uncertainty surrounding any specific reference to possible subsequent rights recognised by national law; finally, as regards the question of changing the monetary limits of the transfers covered by the Directive, Mr Monti preferred to deal with this matter elsewhere; Amendments Nos 3, 8 and 17 could not be taken over as they stood: Amendment No 3 because it limited the scope of the Directive by reducing the level of protection of consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises; Amendment No 8 because the term ‘receipt’ as introduced could lead to legal uncertainty; Amendment No 17 for the same reasons as Amendments Nos 16 and 18; Amendment No 27 was superfluous as its content was covered by Amendment No 20, which provided for a general derogation.

• 1995/04/20 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A4-0089/1995
• #1838
• 1995/03/30 Council Meeting
  • 1838
• 1994/12/12 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 1994/11/18 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(1994)0436 summary

    The objective of the proposal for a directive is to improve cross-border credit transfer services and, therefore, to assist the EMI in carrying out its task of promoting the efficiency of cross-border payments with a view to the preparation of the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union. The proposal for a directive, which applies to all credit transfers, irrespective of amount, defines the general obligations of transparency which institutions offering cross-border credit transfers are required to comply with in order to ensure that customers receive an adequate level of information. Institutions must provide customers with accurate written information before and after a credit transfer is executed or received (indication of the time needed to clear the funds in the payee's account, basis for calculating commission and charges payable by the customer, reference to redress procedures, reference allowing the customer to identify the payment, value date etc). The proposal also sets out the minimum quality of execution requirements with which institutions offering cross-border credit transfer services must comply. Thus, these institutions have an obligation to: - execute the credit transfer within a reasonable period of time; - execute the credit transfer in accordance with the instructions on the payment order; - pay a refund if credit transfers are not completed, although Member States may be granted a derogation from this obligation for payments of sums in excess of ECU 10,000. Although detailed, these minimum obligations give institutions almost carte blanche in drafting the terms and conditions attached to their services.�

• 1994/09/30 Additional information

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(1994)0436
• Debate in Council: 1838
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A4-0089/1995
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T4-0262/1995
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(1995)0264
• Debate in Council: 1863
• Council position published: 11262/1/1995
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A4-0033/1996
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T4-0117/1996
• Joint text approved by Conciliation Committee co-chairs: 3632/1996
• Report tabled for plenary, 3rd reading: A4-0004/1997
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 3rd reading: T4-0010/1997
• : Directive 1997/5
• : OJ L 043 14.02.1997, p. 0025

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)