Next event: Commission response to text adopted in plenary 2013/04/02 more...
- Results of vote in Parliament 2012/11/20
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading 2012/11/20
- End of procedure in Parliament 2012/11/20
- Debate in Parliament 2012/11/19
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading 2012/10/04
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2012/09/26
- Committee opinion 2012/09/14
- Amendments tabled in committee 2012/07/12
Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | ECON | TERHO Sampo ( EFD) | ESSAYAH Sari ( PPE), PADAR Ivari ( S&D), IN 'T VELD Sophia ( ALDE), EICKHOUT Bas ( Verts/ALE), FOX Ashley ( ECR), CHOUNTIS Nikolaos ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | JURI | ||
Committee Opinion | IMCO | COFFERATI Sergio Gaetano ( S&D) | Matteo SALVINI ( ENF) |
Committee Opinion | INTA | ||
Committee Opinion | ITRE |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 052
Legal Basis:
RoP 052Subjects
Events
The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Green Paper ‘Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments’.
Members note that the European market for card, internet and mobile payments is at present still fragmented across national borders and only a few big players are able to get acceptance by merchants and to operate on a cross-border basis. Whilst welcoming the Green Paper and fully agreeing with the listed aims, they note that the latter does not tackle the costs and societal impacts of cash or cheque payments in comparison with card, internet and mobile payments, thus preventing a comparative analysis of the economic and welfare costs and societal impacts of payments by cash or cheque.
Parliament makes the following principal recommendations:
The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, Parliament recognises that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive.
Parliament points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance.
Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent , pointing out that those that do not use expensive payment methods still cover their costs. They ask the Commission, therefore, also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They recall that all Europeans should have access to basic banking services and stress 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.
Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards , on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants.
Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery.
The resolution 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 .
In Members’ opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EU’s key economic partners.
Governance: the resolution calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance , covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation.
Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliament’s previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision- making and standard-setting process.
Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive , Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments.
Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, Parliament points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options. Parliament notes that after a transitional period, a person coming from any Member State should have his or her SEPA-compatible payment card accepted at every payment terminal in the SEPA, and that the payment should be safely routed. Noting further that this requirement might imply that MIFs need to be regulated to fall under a threshold, Parliament insists that this should not result in an increase of MIFs in any Member State but rather to a decrease and, perhaps, a reduction towards zero at some later stage.
Parliament considers that MIFs should be regulated at the European level, with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates. Recalling that Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 on credit transfers and direct debits in euros provides that no per-transaction MIF can be applied after 1 February 2017, the resolution calls for the same approach for card payments .
Surcharging: Parliament stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States.
Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge.
Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States , and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer.
Parliament is generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. It notes that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yes–no') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights.
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sampo TERHO (EFD, FI) on the Green Paper ‘ Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments ’ .
Members commend the Commission for providing the Green Paper, find the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant, and fully agree with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust.
The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows:
The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, the committee recognises that s elf-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive.
The report points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance.
Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent . They therefore call upon the Commission also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They stress 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.
Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards , on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants.
Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery.
The report 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 .
In Members’ opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EU’s key economic partners.
Governance: the report calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance , covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation.
Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliament’s previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process.
Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive , Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments.
Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, the report points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options.
The report favours MIFs being regulated at the European level , with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates.
Surcharging: the report stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States.
Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge.
Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States , and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer.
They are generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. They note that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yes – no') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights.
CONTENT: to launch a consultation with a view to facilitating secure, efficient, competitive and innovative electronic payments by card, internet and mobile phones (Green Paper).
BACKGROUND: the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is based on the premise that there should be no distinction between cross-border and domestic electronic retail payments in euro across the EU. The SEPA project covers the key retail payment instruments: credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards. From this basis, SEPA should be a springboard to creating a competitive and innovative European payments market in two ways.
The first concerns the ever-growing proportion of on-line or internet payments (e-payments) and mobile payments (m-payments) . Above all, the mass take-up of smart phones is changing the payments landscape and is leading to new payment applications, for example electronic purses, replacing wallets and physical cards, or virtual public transport tickets stored in a mobile phone. Here, the pan-European SEPA payment instruments can provide the basis for more integrated and secure payment innovations. Secondly, the existing standards and rules developed under SEPA could be re-applied to payment instruments in non-euro currencies, thereby taking the boundaries of a Single Market for payments beyond euro-denominated transactions.
The euro retail payments market is one of the largest in the world and involves millions of companies and hundreds of millions of citizens. According to statistics from the European Central Bank (ECB), in 2009 almost 58 billion retail payment transactions were made in the euro area alone. Annual growth rates of the e-commerce market size over the next five years are projected at around 10 %. Average spending per capita at EU level is forecast to rise from EUR 483 in 2009 to EUR 601 in 2014 .
The economic benefits of integrating this market are substantial. For example, studies suggest that full migration to SEPA for credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards could yield direct and indirect benefits of more than EUR 300 billion over a six-year period . The current degree of payment integration at European level varies markedly between the various payment instruments (such as credit transfers, direct debits and payment cards) and channels (e- or mpayments) used to make a payment.
Payment cards are the most common and frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail payments. In terms of volume (number of transactions), card payments represented a third of all retail payments in 2009. However, integration of the European payment card market is far from complete and tangible results are still limited. The lack of a coherent and comprehensive (self-) regulatory framework currently leads to a European e-payments environment that is largely fragmented along national borders with a small number of successful domestic e-payment schemes and a limited number of large international players from outside Europe. Market penetration of m-payments in the EU still has considerable unrealised potential, in comparison, for example, to the Asia/Pacific region; the largest and most promising global m-payment initiatives are currently launched outside Europe.
For this vision to become reality for card, e- and m-payments, a number of additional issues need to be addressed, such as security, freedom of choice, unhindered technical and business innovation, standardisation of the various components and interoperability.
CONTENT: this Green Paper assesses the current landscape of card, internet and mobile payments in Europe, identifies the gaps between the current situation and the vision of a fully integrated payments market and the barriers which have created these gaps.
The objective of the Green Paper is to launch a broad-scale consultation process with stakeholders to validate or contribute to the Commission’s analysis and to help identify the right way to improve market integration.
The main issues dealt with in the Green Paper are as follows:
(1) Market access and market entry across borders : a number of separate issues can be identified in this context. It is important to note that these issues, while historically all stemming from commercial practices for payment cards, either are applied in the same form for e- and m-payments or at least have significant spill-over effects which affect e- and m-payments indirectly, for example when an e- or m-payment is made through the use of a payment card.
The proposal calls for:
the need to clarify the legal situation as regards the Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs); the obstacles to development of cross border acquiring which refers to a situation in which a merchant uses the services of an acquiring PSP established in another country; the potential benefits and/or drawbacks of co-badging, a system which combines different payment brands on the same card or device; the possibility to separate schemes and card payment processing; the need to ensure compliance with the SEPA Cards Framework (SCF); the need to establish objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance.
(2) Transparent and cost-effective pricing of payment services : the real cost of these payment services is often opaque, both for consumers and for merchants, which leads to higher payment costs in the EU economy. The lack of transparency mostly applies to the cards market, but links between cards, e- and m-payments have implications for all these payment methods. Furthermore, increased transparency in pricing should be seen as a way to reduce the costs of payment transactions for all parties involved and ultimately optimise costs across the EU for the benefit of payment service users. Another issue related to the pricing of payment services concerns micro-payments, i.e. low-value payments, which by their nature are often made by card, internet or mobile payments. Payment fees are often perceived as excessive, both by consumers and merchants.
(3) Technical standardisation : European payment users (companies, consumers, merchants) will fully benefit from competition, freedom of choice and more efficient payment operations if cross-border interoperability is achieved. This applies to all electronic payments and involves multiple actors in the payment process, depending on the payment method. However, standardisation of the various components (e.g. protocols, interfaces, applications, services) needs to be carried out thoroughly23 in order to minimise the risk of foreclosure of potential competitors or innovation.
The question is asked as to whether the use of common standards for card payments would be beneficial and if the current governance arrangements are sufficient to coordinate, drive and ensure the adoption and implementation of common standards for card payments within a reasonable timeframe.
(4) Interoperability between service providers : c ooperation is a key requirement in a network industry such as payments, as any payment requires an agreement between the payer’s payment service provider and the payee’s payment service provider. To ensure that any payment can reach any beneficiary without detriment to the actors and intermediaries involved, a higher level of coordination is desirable in the form of full interoperability.
In line with the Commission’s proposal for credit transfers and direct debits , the principle of interoperability could be applied in the cards market, in addition to addressing the obstacles
mentioned above, particularly for the choice of the acquirer and the commercial rules.
(5) Payments security and data protection : t he security of retail payments is a crucial prerequisite for payment users and merchants alike. The public consultation on the future of e-commerce in the internal market confirmed this and identified payments security as one of the key hurdles preventing the widespread adoption of electronic commerce.
The continuous replacement of signature-based cards (equipped with a magnetic stripe for card reading) by ‘Chip and PIN’ (EMV-compliant) cards has helped reduce fraud significantly at the point-of-sale at European level. While this helped to drive down card fraud in physical payment transactions, fraudulent activity is now increasingly moving to remote card transactions, in particular to payments over the internet .
A second important issue in this field is data protection. All payment means referred to in this document imply the processing of personal data and the use of electronic communication networks. It is crucial that authentication mechanisms for payment transactions are designed from the outset to include the necessary measures to ensure compliance with data protection requirements.
(6) Governance : until now, SEPA has been predominantly run as a self-regulatory project, set up and managed by the European banking industry through the EPC, with the strong support of the ECB and the Commission. With the adoption of the Regulation establishing technical requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euros a more active involvement of the EU institutions in the SEPA governance may be useful . In this context, a more prominent role for the legislative and regulatory oversight through, for example, the ECB, the Commission or the European Banking Authority (EBA) could be considered.
In areas such as creating a proper framework for e- and m-payments, integration efforts have been slow to produce tangible results, thereby delaying interoperability, innovation, increased choice and scale effects. Deadlocks and uncertainties may lead to market participants taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude. Given the current lack of commitment to such an important initiative for the European economy as a whole, achieving an integrated market requires taking a comprehensive approach involving regulation, self-regulation and competition law compliance and enforcement.
All interested parties are invited to submit their views in response to the above questions.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2013)110
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0426/2012
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0304/2012
- Committee opinion: PE489.574
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE492.906
- Committee draft report: PE491.085
- Contribution: COM(2011)0941
- Non-legislative basic document published: EUR-Lex
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2011)0941
- Committee draft report: PE491.085
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE492.906
- Committee opinion: PE489.574
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2013)110
- Contribution: COM(2011)0941
Activities
- Alexander Nuno PICKART ALVARO
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Elena BĂSESCU
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Christian ENGSTRÖM
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Petru Constantin LUHAN
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Andreas MÖLZER
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Sampo TERHO
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Silvia-Adriana ȚICĂU
Plenary Speeches (0)
- Artur ZASADA
Plenary Speeches (0)
Amendments | Dossier |
36 |
2012/2040(INI)
2012/06/22
IMCO
36 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that while electronic payments are playing an increasingly important role in Europe and in the world, serious obstacles remain for a fully and effectively integrated, competitive, innovative, safe, transparent and consumer-friendly European single market with regard to these forms of payments;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. welcomes the provisions in the new Consumer Rights Directive with respect to additional payments and the ban on exceeding fees for the use of means of payment, which will contribute to the confidence of consumers when shopping online; calls however on the Commission to continue its efforts with respect to the creation of a level playing field in the area of card, internet and mobile payments, benefitting consumers and businesses alike in a Digital Single Market;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Stresses that, in this connection, measures should be taken to halt frequent discrimination against European consumers whose payments for cross- border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. 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;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that standardisation at European level is needed, in the form of a regulatory framework that establishes security standards for each form of electronic payments, and that regulates all the actors involved in the provision of payment services as well as all intermediaries, including merchants (e.g. storage of credentials). In the definition of the standards, account should be taken of the systems that have brought significant shifts towards safer payments (e.g. CHIP&PIN system for cards, Two-factor authentication system, E-Signature and Online payments by pass through services for e-payments), of the systems more vulnerable to frauds (e.g. where consumers' sensitive personal data are transmitted to third parties, as in Online payments by overlay services, or magnetic strip system, for cards) and of the innovations that could make the processes safer;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Believes that further standardisation at European level is needed,
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Takes the view that standardisation should not be limited to the definition of security standards but should include measures necessary to ensure a more open, transparent, innovative, competitive and unfragmented electronic payments market that brings advantages to all consumers (for example with regard to interoperability or, in m-payments, portability). Considers that, to reach this target, the tool of mandatory co-badging for payments cards, when required by the cardholder, should be taken into consideration (in that case the choice of priority between the PSPs available on the card should be up to the consumer) and that the remaining obstacles for cross- border acquiring should be eliminated;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Notes that care must be taken to ensure that any such measures always comply with the principles of free competition and free market entry and access, taking account of future technological innovations in this sector so as to adapt to future developments and consistently promoting and facilitating innovation and competitiveness;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Believes that all cross-border and domestic multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) should be made public and asks the Commission and Member States to ensure they are published;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Points out that while electronic payments are playing an increasingly important role in Europe and in the world, serious obstacles remain for a fully and effectively integrated, competitive, safe, transparent and consumer-friendly European digital single market with regard to these forms of payments;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 b (new) 5b. Considers that it should be possible for PSPs (even if non-banks) to have information on the funds availability of a client making a payment, in order to be sure that he is not in an overdraft situation, but that that information should be limited to a simple indication whether these funds are or are not available. Believes that charges for this operation should be harmonised;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised and progressively banned by a fixed deadline and that, in parallel, surcharges, rebates and other steering practices should be progressively banned as well, paving the way for a more transparent European single market of payments. Also the issue of three parties systems "implicit interchange fees" should be faced and these fees progressively banned. In this context considers changes to 'No Discrimination' or 'Honour All Cards' Rules counterproductive and to be avoided;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Points out that domestic and cross- border multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) vary significantly between Member States; Believes that both domestic and cross-boarder multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-boarder
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Believes that domestic and cross-border multilateral interchange fees in the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) should be harmonised
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Considers that enforcement of rules in electronic payments is often difficult, not adequate and different in Europe, and that stronger efforts should be made to ensure a proper and uniform enforcement of the rules;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Recognises the role of multilateral interchange fees as a critical tool to balance the benefits and costs of electronic payments, and ensures that each participant pays their fair share of the costs associated with providing card payment services. Any excessive regulatory intervention in interchange may result in fewer payment choices, an increase in costs for consumers, curb innovation and have a negative impact on investment in security;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Notes that in the current crisis it is essential to take action to boost economic growth and job creation and restimulate consumption. While the digital market provides a great opportunity to achieve these objectives, the European Union must for this purpose be in a position to establish a full digital internal market. It is vital to demolish existing obstacles on the one hand and boost consumer confidence on the other; in this connection, the existence of a neutral and safe European single market for card, internet and mobile payments facilitating free competition and innovation is essential for the achievement of a genuine single digital market and could greatly contribute to increasing consumer confidence;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods, given that traders generally include transaction costs in the price of their products and services, with the result that consumers are not properly informed in advance regarding the total cost and pay more for their purchases, thereby undermining consumer confidence;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Affirms that a self-regulatory approach is not sufficient; considers that the Commission and ECB should take a more
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Affirms that a self-regulatory approach is not sufficient; considers that the Member States, together with the Commission and ECB, should take a more active and leading role
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers it likely that there will be a growing number of European companies whose activities are effectively dependent on being able to accept payments by card; considers it to be in the public interest to define objective rules describing the circumstances and procedures under which card payment schemes may unilaterally refuse acceptance;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 b (new) 7b. Highlights that non-banks should not have access to information on the balance of funds of a customers' bank account, apart from a simple confirmation at the point when the transaction takes place that there are sufficient funds to complete a transaction;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 c (new) 7c. Asks the Commission to assess the possibility of liberalising the payment card market and promoting new entrants into this market, by for example having a common payment infrastructure for all transactions regardless of the card provider.
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Notes that the development of transparent, safe and effective payment systems in the European digital market is essential to ensure a genuine digital economy and facilitate cross-border e- commerce;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Underlines the important role that e
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Recognises in this connection that the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) is a cornerstone for the creation of an integrated European payments market and should serve as a basis for developing it and making it more innovative and competitive;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Takes the view that incisive actions to inform consumers on conditions and requirements for safe electronic payments should be put in place at European level, in order to
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Affirms that the transparency of the electronic payments systems, correct information to consumers in any payment transaction and a direct and easy access to information are prerequisites for a well functioning European market for electronic payments;
source: PE-492.607
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
docs/3/body |
EC
|
events/0 |
|
events/0 |
|
events/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-304&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2012-0304_EN.html |
events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-426New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2012-0426_EN.html |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
ECON/7/08785New
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure EP 052
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
|
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52011DC0941:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0941New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0941/COM_COM(2011)0941_FR.pdf |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52011DC0941:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0941/COM_COM(2011)0941_FR.pdfNew
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=0941 |
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a |
activities/2/committees/0/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a |
committees/0/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
545fc318d1d1c57f99000000New
4f1ac934b819f25efd00011a |
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/committees |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2012-09-26T00:00:00New
2012-01-11T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Non-legislative basic document published |
activities/1/body |
Old
ECNew
EP |
activities/1/commission |
|
activities/1/committees |
|
activities/1/date |
Old
2012-01-11T00:00:00New
2012-03-15T00:00:00 |
activities/1/docs |
|
activities/1/type |
Old
Non-legislative basic documentNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/2/committees |
|
activities/2/date |
Old
2012-03-08T00:00:00New
2012-09-26T00:00:00 |
activities/2/type |
Old
EP officialisationNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sampo TERHO (EFD, FI) on the Green Paper Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. Members commend the Commission for providing the Green Paper, find the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant, and fully agree with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust. The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows: The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, the committee recognises that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive. The report points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance. Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent. They therefore call upon the Commission also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They stress 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. Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards, on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants. Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery. The report 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. In Members opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EUs key economic partners. Governance: the report calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation. Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliaments previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process. Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive, Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments. Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, the report points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options. The report favours MIFs being regulated at the European level, with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates. Surcharging: the report stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States. Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge. Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States, and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer. They are generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. They note that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yesno') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights. New
The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted an own-initiative report by Sampo TERHO (EFD, FI) on the Green Paper Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments. Members commend the Commission for providing the Green Paper, find the considerations and questions posed therein to be highly relevant, and fully agree with the listed aims to get more competition, more choice, more innovation and more payment security, as well as customer trust. The main recommendations contained in the report are as follows: The different payment methods: although noting the importance of market-based self-regulation in cooperation among all stakeholders, the committee recognises that self-regulation may not achieve desired outcomes in an acceptable timeframe due to conflicting interests. It expects the Commission to come forward with necessary legislative proposals in order to help ensure a true Single European Payments Area (SEPA) for card, internet and mobile payments, and notes in this respect the importance of the forthcoming review of the Payment Services Directive. The report points out that a safe, trustworthy and transparent European framework for electronic payments is essential for the launch of a digital single market. It stresses that measures should be taken to put an end to the frequent discrimination of European consumers whose payments for cross-border online transactions are not accepted because of their provenance. Members regret that, in the current situation, most payment costs are non-transparent. They therefore call upon the Commission also to consider in the future the cost, peculiarities and societal impacts of cash and cheque payments, for all market players and consumers, as compared to other payment methods. They stress 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. Standardisation: Members consider further work on common technical standards, on an open access basis, could enhance the competitiveness of the European economy and the functioning of the internal market, but would also foster interoperability and bring security-related advantages in the form of common security standards, to the benefit of both consumers and merchants. Members note that for internet and mobile payments, most standards should be the same as for current SEPA-payments, but new standards are needed for security and identification of customers, and to provide interbank online real-time delivery. The report 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. In Members opinion, any standardisation and interoperability requirements should be aimed at enhancing the competitiveness, transparency, innovative nature, payment security and effectiveness of the European payment systems, to the advantage of all consumers and other stakeholders. Furthermore, common standards should be sought at global level as well, in close cooperation with the EUs key economic partners. Governance: the report calls on the Commission to propose a better SEPA governance, covering the organisational setup related to the development of the main features of payment services and of the implementation of the requirements which need to be met, and allowing the development of technical and security standards to be organised separately in support of the implementation of the related legislation. Members favour a more balanced representation of all stakeholders in the further development of common technical and security standards for payment systems. The Commission is called upon to answer Parliaments previous calls for reform of SEPA governance so as to ensure better representation of payment services users in the decision-making and standard-setting process. Multilateral Inter-change Fees (MIFs): recalling that according to the European Court of Justice ruling on the "Mastercard case" of 24 May 2012, the MIF may be considered anticompetitive, Members ask the Commission to propose how this ruling should be taken into account in regulating the business models for card, mobile or internet payments. Noting that current MIF revenues are in many cases too high relative to the costs they should cover, the report points out that there might be a need to balance different payment charges in order to ensure that cross-subsidising practices would not promote inefficient instrument choices. Members call on the Commission to ensure by regulation that MIFs no longer distort competition by creating barriers to new market entrants and innovation and to conduct an impact assessment, by the end of 2012, on the different options. The report favours MIFs being regulated at the European level, with the aim of ensuring easier access for new market players to cross-border acquiring, thereby providing merchants with a real choice of which payment schemes they wish to join. It points out that if the new legislative proposal provides for fees, full transparency should be ensured on the elements that constitute their rates. Surcharging: the report stresses that it is necessary to require greater transparency and better consumer information regarding surcharges and additional fees for the various payment methods. Members note that surcharging based solely on the payment choice made by a customer risks being arbitrary, might be abused to raise additional revenue rather than to cover cost. They consider that it would be important to ban the possibilities for excessive surcharges in relation to the merchant fee of an individual transaction, and to control rebates and similar consumer steering practices in all the Member States. Members stress, therefore, that merchants should accept one commonly used payment instrument without any surcharge (SEPA-compliant debit card, e-payment), and that any surcharges on other instruments may not at any point exceed the additional direct costs of those instruments compared to the instrument accepted without surcharge. Payment security: Members consider that the minimum security requirements for internet, card and mobile payments should be the same in all Member States, and that there should be a common governing body setting the requirements. They recall that while the final responsibility for security measures relating to different payment methods cannot lie with customers, they should be informed about security precautions, and financial institutions should be responsible for fraud costs, unless caused by the customer. They are generally not in favour of third-party access to a customer's bank account information unless the system is demonstrably secure and has been thoroughly tested. They note that, in any regulation, third-party access should be limited to binary ('yesno') information on the availability of funds, and that special attention should be paid to security, data protection and consumer rights. |
activities/4 |
|
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-01-11T00:00:00New
2012-11-19T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
DateNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/5 |
|
activities/5/committees |
|
activities/5/date |
Old
2012-03-15T00:00:00New
2012-11-20T00:00:00 |
activities/5/docs |
|
activities/5/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Results of vote in Parliament |
activities/6 |
|
activities/9 |
|
activities/10 |
|
activities/11 |
|
committees/0/committee |
Old
IMCONew
ECON |
committees/0/committee_full |
Old
Internal Market and Consumer ProtectionNew
Economic and Monetary Affairs |
committees/0/date |
Old
2012-03-29T00:00:00New
2012-03-27T00:00:00 |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
EFD |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de183fa0fb8127435bdbce6New
4f1ac4c9b819f25896000035 |
committees/0/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
COFFERATI Sergio GaetanoNew
TERHO Sampo |
committees/0/responsible |
Old
New
True |
committees/0/shadows |
|
committees/1/committee |
Old
ECONNew
IMCO |
committees/1/committee_full |
Old
Economic and Monetary AffairsNew
Internal Market and Consumer Protection |
committees/1/date |
Old
2012-03-27T00:00:00New
2012-03-29T00:00:00 |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/group |
Old
EFDNew
S&D |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref |
Old
4de188e80fb8127435bdc3ecNew
4f1ac731b819f25efd000071 |
committees/1/rapporteur/0/name |
Old
TERHO SampoNew
COFFERATI Sergio Gaetano |
committees/1/responsible |
Old
TrueNew
|
committees/1/shadows |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
procedure/legal_basis/0 |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048New
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052 |
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-11-19T00:00:00New
2012-06-04T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Debate scheduledNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-06-04T00:00:00New
2012-07-12T00:00:00 |
activities/6/docs/0/title |
Old
PE491.085New
PE492.906 |
activities/6/docs/0/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.085New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.906 |
activities/6/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/9/date |
Old
2012-11-20T00:00:00New
2012-11-19T00:00:00 |
activities/9/type |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/11/date |
Old
2012-07-12T00:00:00New
2012-11-20T00:00:00 |
activities/11/docs/0/title |
Old
PE492.906New
T7-0426/2012 |
activities/11/docs/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/11/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE492.906
|
activities/11/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
activities/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2011/0941/COM_COM(2011)0941_FR.pdf |
activities/8/docs/0/text |
|
activities/9/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate scheduled |
activities/10 |
|
activities/11 |
|
activities/8/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2012-304&language=EN
|
activities/4 |
|
activities/4/body |
Old
ECNew
EP |
activities/4/commission |
|
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-10-22T00:00:00New
2012-06-04T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
Prev DG PRESNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6 |
|
activities/6/date |
Old
2012-10-22T00:00:00New
2012-07-12T00:00:00 |
activities/6/docs |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
EP 1R PlenaryNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/11 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
activities/3/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
activities/7/committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/8 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
committees/0/shadows/5 |
|
activities/7/committees |
|
activities/7/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/3/committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/6 |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/7/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
EP 1R Plenary |
activities/8 |
|
activities/4 |
|
activities/4/date |
Old
2012-09-19T00:00:00New
2012-06-04T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/4/type |
Old
EP 1R CommitteeNew
Committee draft report |
activities/6 |
|
activities/7/date |
Old
2012-09-19T00:00:00New
2012-09-26T00:00:00 |
activities/5 |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE491.085
|
activities/4 |
|
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/3/committees/0/date |
2012-03-27T00:00:00
|
activities/3/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
activities/4 |
|
committees/0/date |
2012-03-27T00:00:00
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/3/committees/1/date |
2012-03-29T00:00:00
|
activities/3/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
committees/1/date |
2012-03-29T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2011&nu_doc=941
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|