Awaiting committee decision
Next event: Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2014/02/20 more...
- Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2014/04/02
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | ECON | ZALBA BIDEGAIN Pablo (EPP) | BALDINI Marino (S&D), IN 'T VELD Sophia (ALDE), EICKHOUT Bas (Verts/ALE), FOX Ashley (ECR), KLUTE Jürgen (GUE/NGL), TERHO Sampo (EFD) |
Opinion | IMCO | BIELAN Adam (ECR) |
Legal Basis TFEU 114-p1
- 2.50.04.02 Electronic money and payments, cross-border credit transfers
- 2.50.08 Financial services, financial reporting and auditing
- 3.45.03 Financial management of undertakings, business loans, accounting
- 3.45.05 Business policy, electronic commerce, after-sales service, commercial distribution
- 4.60.06 Consumers' economic and legal interests
Activites
-
2014/04/02
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
-
2014/02/20
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2013/11/25 Committee draft report
-
2013/10/08
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2013/07/24
Legislative proposal
-
COM(2013)0550
summary
PURPOSE: to lay down uniform technical and business requirements on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions. PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council. BACKGROUND: the regulatory and legislative framework for retail payments in the EU has been developed over the past 12 years, with the advent of the Euro acting as an accelerating factor. One of the key practices hindering the achievement of an integrated market reasons is the widespread use of so-called Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs). At present, no legislation regulating interchange fees is in place in the EU. MIFs are collectively agreed inter-bank fees usually between the acquiring payment service providers and the issuing payment service providers belonging to a certain scheme. Such interchange fees paid by acquiring payment service providers form part of the fees they charge to merchants which merchants in turn pass on to consumers. Thus, high Interchange Fees paid by merchants result in higher final prices for goods and services, which are paid by all consumers. There currently is a wide variety of interchange fees applied within national and international payment card schemes, which gives rise to market fragmentation and prevents retailers and consumers from enjoying the benefits of an internal market for goods and services. Market entry for pan-European players remains difficult, as domestic interchange fees in EU Member States vary widely and new entrants would have to offer interchange fees at least comparable to those prevailing in each market they want to enter. The entry barriers interchange fees thus created for online and mobile payment solutions also result in less innovation. Over the last 20 years, the European Commission and national competition authorities have conducted a number of antitrust proceedings addressing anti-competitive practices in the card payment market. The General Court judgment of May 2012 confirmed the Commission's finding in its MasterCard Decision of December 2007 that MIFs restrict competition as they inflate the cost of card acceptance by merchants without leading to benefits for consumers. In its non-legislative resolution of 20 November 2012 on the Green Paper 'Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments”, the Parliament took a firm position in favour of providing clarity on interchange fees to market participants and expressed itself in favour of a gradual approach leading to a ban on interchange fees through regulation. LEGAL BASIS: Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the impact assessment considers six scenarios for interchange fees. The assessment concludes that the most beneficial option appears to be a combination of: capping the level of interchange fees for cross-border transactions with consumer debit and credit cards (in the first stage) and, in a second stage, capping the level of interchange fees also for domestic transactions with consumer credit cards and consumer debit cards; a series of measures to enhance effective market functioning including the limitation of the rule allowing merchants to determine the choice of card brand at the point of sale for all cards and card-based transactions based on four party scheme models. CONTENT: the present regulation, combined with the proposed revised Payment Services Directive, proposes to create common rules for interchange fees in the European Union by introducing maximum fee levels for transactions with payment cards that are widely used by consumers and thereby difficult to refuse or surcharge by retailers. The regulation will in addition propose transparency measures to allow retailers and consumers to make better informed choices of payment instruments. Capping interchange fees: the Commission proposes to set caps for interchange fees to payment service providers of 0.2% and 0.3% for the value of the transaction for all consumer debit and credit transactions. These figures have been accepted by Visa, MasterCard and the French domestic card scheme Groupement Cartes Bancaires. During a transition period of two years, maximum levels of interchange fees are imposed for cross-border transactions (where the card holder uses their card in another Member State) or cross-border acquired transactions (where the merchant uses an acquiring PSP in another Member State) only. After a transitional period, the regulation of interchange fees for consumer cards should therefore be extended to cover also domestic interchange fees. Business rules: the proposed Regulation contains measures as regards business rules that will be applicable to all categories of card transactions and card-based payment transactions based on those. As of the entry into force of the regulation, for instance: the application of the 'Honour All Cards Rule' will be limited. No discrimination will be nonetheless allowed on the basis of the issuing bank or the provenance of the card holder and between the cards carrying the same interchange fee level; the application of any rule preventing or limiting merchants from steering customers to more efficient payments instruments ('no steering rules') will be prohibited; acquiring Payment Service Providers will provide at least monthly statements of fees to merchants, in which the fees paid by the merchant over the relevant month concerning each category of cards and each individual brand for when the acquirer provides acquiring services is specified; the application of any rule withholding merchants from disclosing to their customers fees they pay to payment services acquirers will be prohibited. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: the proposal does not have any impact on the EU budget.
- SWD(2013)0288
- SWD(2013)0289
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/internal_market/', 'title': 'Internal Market and Services'}, BARNIER Michel
-
COM(2013)0550
summary
Documents
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2013)0550
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2013)0288
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2013)0289
- Committee draft report: PE522.956
Amendments | Dossier |
73 |
2013/0265(COD)
2013/12/12
IMCO
73 amendments...
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Title 1 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on interchange fees for card-based payment transactions and digital wallets (Text with EEA relevance)
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) One of the key practices hindering the functioning of the internal market in card and card-based payments is the widespread existence of interchange fees, which are in most Member States not subject to any legislation. Interchange fees are inter-bank fees usually
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11) The currently existing
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) For domestic transactions, a transition period is necessary to provide payment services providers and schemes with time to adapt to the new requirements. Therefore, after a two year period following the entry into force of this Regulation
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) In order to facilitate cross border acquiring all
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) In order to facilitate cross border acquiring all
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) In order to facilitate cross border acquiring all (cross-border and domestic) ‘consumer’ debit card transactions and card based payment transaction should have a maximum
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29 Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 29 (29) The Honour all Cards Rule is a twofold obligation imposed by issuing payment services providers and payment card schemes on payees to, on the one hand, accept all the cards of the same brand (‘Honour all Products’ - element), irrespective of the different costs of these cards, and on the other hand irrespective of the individual issuing bank which has issued the card (‘Honour all Issuers’ – element). It is in the interest of the consumer that for the same category of cards with the same fee the payee cannot discriminate between issuers or cardholders, and payments schemes and payment service providers can impose such obligation on them. Therefore, although the ‘Honour all Issuers’ element of the Honour all Cards Rule is a justifiable rule within a payment card system, since it prevents that payees
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 31 (31) In order to ensure that redress is possible where this Regulation has been incorrectly applied, or where disputes occur between payment services users and payment services providers, Member States should establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures. Member States, following guidelines set up by the European Banking Authority, should lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and should ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they are applied.
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 1. This Regulation lays down uniform
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 1. This Regulation lays down uniform technical and business requirements for
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. This Regulation does not apply to payment card transactions carried out under payment card scheme in respect of which the total number of cards issued to customers in the Union by or under the relevant payment card scheme is 1% or less of the total number of payment cards issued by all payment card schemes in the Union.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point a (a)
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point c (c)
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 3 – point c (c) transactions with cards issued
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4)
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4) ‘debit card transaction’ means an card payment transaction included with prepaid cards linked to a current or deposit access
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 (5)
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5 (5) ‘credit card transaction’ means an card payment transaction where the transaction is settled
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new) (6a) ‘payment card’ means a card – debit or credit – which entitles the bearer to make cash payments or enables the bearer to submit payment orders through the intermediation of a merchant or an acquirer, and which the merchant accepts with a view to receiving the funds owed to him;
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 (9)
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 (9) 'interchange fee' means a fee paid for each transaction directly or indirectly (i.e. through a third party) between the payment service providers of the payer and of the payee involved in a payment card or a payment card-based transaction. An interchange fee may be open, in the case of the four party payment card scheme (the fee is paid by one legal entity to another legal entity), or hidden, in the case of a three party scheme (internal transfer between the acquiring division and the issuing division of the same legal entity). It also incorporates fees paid or discounts offered between the payer’s payment service provider and a partner from the same brand or an agent;
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15 (15)
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 a (new) (25a) 'digital wallet' means a service allowing the wallet holder to access, manage and use identification and payment instruments in order to initiate payments. This service may reside on a device owned by the wallet holder e.g., a mobile phone or a PC or may be remotely hosted on a server (or a combination thereof) but is anyway under the control of the holder. The merchant with whom the digital wallet contracts is referred to as the 'sub-merchant';
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 a (new) (25a) 'weighted average' means in relation to interchange fees the total amount of credit card or debit card interchange fees paid divided by the total amount of related transactions over the same period;
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 a (new) (25a) ‘digital wallet’ means a service enabling the bearer of the wallet to gain access to, manage and use identification and payment tools to initiate payments. This service may be located on a device owned by the bearer of the wallet, for instance a mobile telephone or personal computer, or it may be hosted remotely on a server (the above solutions may also be combined), but it must in all cases be under the control of the bearer. The merchant with whom the digital wallet enters into a contract is referred to as a ‘sub-merchant’;
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 25 b (new) Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – title Interchange fees for cross-border consumer debit or credit card
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 2. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Any provisions in contracts or other forms of agreements which exclude the application of paragraphs 1 or 2 or which contain higher interchange fee rates than those set out in paragraph 1 or 2 shall be prohibited. In the event that a contract or other form of agreement excludes the application of paragraph 1 or 2, or if a contract or other form of agreement sets a higher interchange fee rate than those set out in paragraph 1 or 2, the maximum rate foreseen in paragraph 1 or 2 shall be applied.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States shall be able to maintain or introduce lower caps through national legislation.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – title Interchange fees for
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment service providers shall not offer or request a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,2 % on a weighted average of the value of the transaction for any debit card based transactions.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. With effect from two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment service providers shall not offer or request a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 2. With effect from two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment service providers shall not offer or request a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,3 % on a weighted average of the value of the transaction for any credit card based transactions.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 2. With effect from
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 2. With effect from
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 2. With effect from two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment service providers shall
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Any provisions in contracts or other forms of agreements which exclude the application of paragraphs 1 or 2 or which contain higher interchange fee rates than those provided for in paragraphs 1 or 2 shall be prohibited. In the event that a contract or other form of agreement excludes the application of paragraph 1 or 2, or if a contract or other form of agreement sets a higher interchange fee rate than those set out in paragraph 1 or 2, the maximum rate foreseen in paragraph 1 or 2 shall be applied.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States shall be able to maintain or introduce lower caps through national legislation.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Member States shall be able to maintain or introduce lower caps or measures of equivalent object or effect through national legislation.
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 For the purposes of the application of the caps referred to in Article 3 and Article 4, any net compensation received by an issuing bank from a payment card scheme in relation to payment transactions or related activities shall be treated as part of the interchange fee. The acquirer should only be charged the amount as stipulated in this regulation.
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 5 a (new) Article 5 a Hidden interchange fees 1. Three party payment card schemes impose hidden interchange fees which should be subject to a cap in the same way as the open interchange fees referred to in Articles 3 and 4 are. 2. In order to ensure compliance with this requirement, three party payment card schemes shall keep separate accounts for business activities connected with consumer card acquiring and for business activities connected with consumer card issuing. This should be done in the same way as it would were these activities carried out by legally separate entities, enabling the identification of all cost and revenue elements – as well as the basis for their calculation and a detailed explanation of the methods used – related to the schemes' issuing and acquiring activities, including a detailed breakdown of fixed assets and structural costs. Three party payment card schemes shall also be obliged to disclose internal transfer costs in order to ensure compliance with the caps for hidden interchange fees and to prevent cross-subsidisation. 3. For the purposes of the application of the caps referred to above in Article 1 and Article 2, any net compensation received by a section responsible for the issuing of consumer cards from a section connected to a payment card scheme in relation to payment transactions or related activities shall be treated as part of the interchange fee. 4. In order to ensure compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2, three party payment card schemes shall be obliged to appoint a Trustee, who shall submit annual reports to the competent authorities referred to in Article 13 et seq. on the three party scheme’s compliance with the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 in the previous year. The implementing provisions concerning the Trustee shall be laid down in Annex X.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 1. Payment card schemes and processing entities shall
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. When entering into a contractual agreement with a payment service provider, the consumer shall be given the possibility to decide whether or not he needs two or more different brands of payment instruments on his card, telecommunication, digital or IT device. Before signing the contract, the payment service provider shall provide the consumer with clear and objective information on the payment brands available and their characteristics related to use, functionalities, cost and security.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. When entering into a contractual agreement with a payment services provider, the consumer shall be provided with clear and objective information and shall be able to decide whether or not he needs two or more different brands of payment instruments on his card, telecommunication, digital or IT device.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 5 5. Where a payment device offers the choice between different brands of payment instruments, the brand applied to the payment transaction at issue shall be determined by the payer at the point of sale. Prior to the contract being signed the payment service provider shall provide the consumer with clear and objective information on all the payment brands available including their interchange fees and their characteristics.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 6 6. Payment card schemes, issuers, acquirers, merchants and payment card handling infrastructure providers shall not insert automatic mechanisms, software or devices on the payment instrument or at equipment applied at the point of sale which limit the choice of application by the payer when using a co-badged payment instrument.
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 1. Acquirers shall offer and charge payees individually specified merchant service charges for different categories and different brands of payment cards with different interchange fee levels unless merchants request in writing acquiring payment services providers to charge blended merchant services charges.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Any reduction in interchange fees under Articles 3 and 4 of this Regulation or decided on by the competent authorities referred to under Article 13 must be accompanied by an at least equivalent reduction in merchant service charges payable by recipients to acquiring service payment providers.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 1 Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 1 1. Payment schemes and payment service providers shall not apply any rule that may oblige payees accepting cards and other payment instruments issued by one issuing payment service provider within the framework of a payment instruments scheme to also accept other payment instruments of the same brand and/or category issued by other issuing payment service providers within the framework of the same scheme, except if they are subject to the same
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 2 Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3 Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 4 4. Issuing payment service providers shall ensure that their payment instruments
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 2. Contracts between acquirers and payees
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 – point 1 (new) (1) The European Banking Authority shall be in charge of issuing guidelines for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall establish independent, adequate and effective out- of-court complaint and redress procedures for the settlement of disputes arising under this Regulation between payees and their payment service providers. For those purposes, Member States shall designate existing bodies, where appropriate, or establish new bodies.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Payment service providers shall adhere to one or more Alternative Dispute Resolution bodies.
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new) One year from the entry into force of this regulation, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the impact on the functioning of the internal market of three party domestic payment fees applying to cross border transactions and, if necessary, draft a legislative proposal seeking to alleviate the negativel effects thereof.
source: PE-526.051
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
Old
CELEX:52013DC0550:ENNew
CELEX:52013PC0550:EN |
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
Old
CELEX:52013PC0550:ENNew
CELEX:52013DC0550:EN |
activities/2/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE522.956
|
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
activities/2 |
|
procedure/instrument |
Old
DirectiveNew
Regulation |
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/4 |
|
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/3 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/date |
2013-09-25T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
ECON/7/13565
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2014-04-02T00:00:00New
2013-07-24T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Legislative proposal |
activities/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/date |
2013-09-25T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/date |
2013-09-25T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2014-04-02T00:00:00New
2013-07-24T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Legislative proposal |
activities/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/date |
2013-09-25T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/date |
2013-09-25T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2014-04-02T00:00:00New
2013-07-24T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Legislative proposal |
activities/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
activities/1 |
|
activities/2 |
|
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
committees/0/shadows |
|
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
committees/0/date |
2013-09-10T00:00:00
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
other/0 |
|
procedure/Mandatory consultation of other institutions |
Economic and Social Committee
|
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
other/0 |
|
procedure/Mandatory consultation of other institutions |
Economic and Social Committee
|
activities/0/commission/0 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
other/0 |
|
procedure/Mandatory consultation of other institutions |
Economic and Social Committee
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|