REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Councilon payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC

20.9.2006 - (COM(2005)0603 – C6‑0411/2005 –2005/0245(COD)) - ***I

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs
Rapporteur: Jean-Paul Gauzès

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RÉSOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC

(COM(2005)0603 – C6 0411/2005 –2005/0245(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–    having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council (COM(2005)0603)[1],

–    having regard to Article 251(2), Article 47(2), first and third sentences, and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the proposal was submitted by the Commission (C6‑0411/2005),

–    having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–    having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6‑0298/2006),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.   Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 3
(3) The situation has not been sufficiently remedied by the Community acts already adopted, namely, Directive 97/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 on cross-border credit transfers and Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, nor by Commission Recommendation 87/598/EEC of 8 December 1987 on a European Code of Conduct relating to electronic payment (relations between financial institutions, traders and service establishments, and consumers), Commission Recommendation 88/590/EEC of 17 November 1988 concerning payment systems, and in particular the relationship between cardholder and card issuer , or Commission Recommendation 97/489/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder. Rather, the co-existence of national provisions and an incomplete Community framework has given rise to confusion and a lack of legal certainty, owing to regulatory overlaps.	(3) Several Community acts have already been adopted in this area, namely, Directive 97/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 on cross-border credit transfers and Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro, have not sufficiently remedied this situation, any more than have Commission Recommendation 87/598/EEC of 8 December 1987 on a European Code of Conduct relating to electronic payment (relations between financial institutions, traders and service establishments, and consumers), Commission Recommendation 88/590/EEC of 17 November 1988 concerning payment systems, and in particular the relationship between cardholder and card issuer , or Commission Recommendation 97/489/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning transactions by electronic payment instruments and in particular the relationship between issuer and holder. Nonetheless, these measures continue to be insufficient. The co‑existence of national provisions and an incomplete Community framework gives rise to confusion and a lack of legal certainty.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 4
(4) It is vital, therefore, to establish at Community level a modern and coherent legal framework for payment services.	(4) It is vital, therefore, to establish at Community level a modern and coherent legal framework for payment services, whether or not the services are compatible with the system resulting from the financial sector initiative for a Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA), that is neutral so as to ensure a level playing field for all payment systems, in order to maintain consumer choice, which should mean a considerable step forward in terms of consumer costs, safety and efficiency, as compared with the present national systems. There should at all times be safeguards to ensure that the costs of payment instruments to users do not rise as a result of implementing this Directive and establishing a unified payments area (SEPA).
Amendment 3 RECITAL 6
(6) However, it is not appropriate for that legal framework to be fully comprehensive. Its application should be confined to providers whose main activity consists in the provision of payment services to payment service users. Nor is it appropriate for it to apply to services where the transfer of funds from the payer to the payee or its transport is executed solely in bank notes and coins or where the transfer is based on a cheque, bill, promissory note or other instruments, vouchers or cards drawn upon a payment service provider or other party with a view to placing funds at the disposal of the payee. Although the legal framework should apply to payment service users and their relationship with payment service providers whenever they use payment services, some provisions should not apply to transactions above a certain amount since the user is likely to be in a position to negotiate more specific and more appropriate terms and conditions with the payment service provider.	(6) However, it is not appropriate for that legal framework to be fully comprehensive. Its application should be confined to providers whose main activity consists in the provision of payment services to payment service users. Nor is it appropriate for it to apply to services where the transfer of funds from the payer to the payee or its transport is executed solely in bank notes and coins or where the transfer is based on a cheque, bill, promissory note or other instruments, vouchers or cards drawn upon a payment service provider or other party with a view to placing funds at the disposal of the payee. Although the legal framework should apply to payment service users and their relationship with payment service providers whenever they use payment services, some provisions should not apply to transactions above a certain amount carried out by enterprises since the user is likely to be in a position to negotiate more specific and more appropriate terms and conditions with the payment service provider.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 8
(8) However, in order to remove legal barriers to market entry, it is necessary to establish a single licence for all providers of payment services which are not connected to taking deposits or issuing e-money. It is appropriate, therefore, to introduce a fourth category of service provider, hereinafter “payment institutions”, by providing for the authorisation, subject to a set of strict and comprehensive conditions, of natural or legal persons outside the existing categories to provide payment services throughout the Community. Thus, the same conditions would apply Community-wide to such services.	(8) However, in order to remove legal barriers to market entry, it is necessary to establish a single licence for all providers of payment services which are not connected to taking deposits or issuing e-money. It is appropriate, therefore, to introduce a new category of service provider, hereinafter “payment institutions”, by providing for the authorisation, subject to a set of strict and comprehensive conditions, of legal persons outside the existing categories to provide payment services throughout the Community. Thus, the same conditions would apply Community-wide to such services.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 9
(9) The conditions for the granting and maintenance of authorisation as payment institutions should include prudential requirements proportionate to the operational and financial risks faced by such bodies in the course of their business. Those requirements should reflect the fact that payment institutions engage in more specialised and restricted activities, thus generating risks that are much narrower and easier to monitor and control than those that arise across the spectrum of activities of credit institutions. In particular, payment institutions should be prohibited from accepting deposits from users and permitted to use only funds accepted from users for rendering payment services. Provision should be made for client funds to be kept separate from the payment institution’s funds for other business activities. Payment institutions should also be made subject to effective anti-money laundering and anti terrorist financing requirements.	(9) The conditions for the granting and maintenance of authorisation as payment institutions should include prudential requirements proportionate to the operational and financial risks faced by such bodies in the course of their business. Here there is a need to ensure that the same risks are treated the same way for all payment service providers. The requirements for the payment institutions should reflect the fact that payment institutions engage in more specialised and restricted activities, thus generating risks that are narrower and easier to monitor and control than those that arise across the broader spectrum of activities of credit institutions. In particular, payment institutions should be prohibited from accepting deposits from users and permitted to use only funds accepted from users for rendering payment services. Provision should be made for client funds to be kept separate from the payment institution’s funds for other business activities. Payment institutions should also be made subject to effective anti-money laundering and anti terrorist financing requirements.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 9 A (new)
	(9a) Whereas it is important to guarantee the financial stability of payment institutions, it is not appropriate for payments institutions to make loans, such as property mortgage loans or medium-term consumer finance loans, as this is closely allied to banking business. However, where credit is granted in order to facilitate payments business and is of a short-term nature, e.g. when issuing credit cards, or is otherwise closely linked to the payments business of the payments institution, it is appropriate to permit it where it is refinanced using the payments institution's own funds, and not the funds held on behalf of clients for payments business.
Amendment 7 RECITAL 10
(10) It is necessary for the Member States to designate the authorities responsible for granting authorisation to payment institutions, for carrying out on-going controls and for deciding whether to withdraw authorisation. In order to ensure equality of treatment, Member States should not apply any requirements to payment institutions other than those provided for in this Directive. However, all decisions made by the competent authorities should be contestable before the courts. In addition, the tasks of the competent authorities should be without prejudice to the oversight of payment systems, which, according to the fourth indent of Article 105(2) of the Treaty, is a task to be carried out by the European System of Central Banks.	(10) It is consistent for the Member States to designate as the authorities responsible for granting authorisation to payment institutions, for carrying out on-going controls and for deciding whether to withdraw authorisation, the authorities that perform the same functions with regard to credit institutions. In order to ensure equality of treatment, Member States should not apply any requirements to payment institutions other than those provided for in this Directive. However, all decisions made by the competent authorities should be contestable before the courts. In addition, the tasks of the competent authorities should be without prejudice to the oversight of payment systems, which, according to the fourth indent of Article 105(2) of the Treaty, is a task to be carried out by the European System of Central Banks.
Amendment 8 RECITAL 14
(14) This Directive should not apply to payment transactions made in cash or to those based on paper cheques since, by their nature, they cannot be processed as efficiently as other means of payment, in particular electronic payments.	(14) This Directive should not apply to payment transactions made in cash since a Single Payments Market for cash already exists. This Directive should also not apply to those payment transactions based on paper cheques since, by their nature, they cannot be processed as efficiently as other means of payment. Good practice in this area should, however, be based on the principles set out in this Directive.
Amendment 9 RECITAL 15
(15) The rules contained in this Directive on transparency of conditions for payment services and those on rights and obligations linked to the provision and use of payment services should not apply where the amount of a payment transaction exceeds EUR 50 000 because payment above this amount are not generally processed on the same way, are often channelled through different networks and are submitted to different technical and legal procedures that should be maintained.	deleted
Amendment 10 RECITAL 18
(18) The information required should be proportionate to the needs of users and communicated in a standard manner. However, the information requirements for a single payment transaction should be different from those for a framework agreement which provides for a series of payment transactions.	(18) The information required should be proportionate to the needs of users and communicated in a standard manner. However, the information requirements for a single payment transaction should be different from those for a framework contract which provides for a series of payment transactions.
Justification
In order to assure the coherence of the text.
Amendment 11 RECITAL 21
(21) In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify his provider of any theft or loss of a payment verification instrument without undue delay and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised transactions, the user should be liable only for a limited amount until such time as he notifies the payment service provider of the loss or theft, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. Moreover, once a user has notified a payment service provider that his payment verification instrument may have been compromised, the user should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument. If the user’s payment verification instrument has not been lost or stolen, he should not bear any financial consequence of unauthorised use.	(21) In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify his provider of any theft or loss of a payment verification instrument without undue delay and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised transactions, the user should be liable only for a limited amount until such time as he notifies the payment service provider of the loss or theft, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence. Moreover, once a user has notified a payment service provider that his payment verification instrument may have been compromised, the user should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument. Payment service providers are responsible for technical security of their own products.
Amendment 12 RECITAL 21 A (new)
	(21a) In case of unauthorised use of verification instruments, the following behaviour should, inter alia, be considered to constitute gross negligence: - the noting by the holder of his personal identification number or any other code in an easily recognisable form, in particular on the electronic funds transfer instrument or on an object or document kept or carried by the holder with the instrument, and - the holder's failure to notify the issuer that the instrument had been lost or stolen as soon as this came to his notice. In order to assess the payment service user’s negligence, account should be taken of all the circumstances. The production by the issuer of the records mentioned and the use of the payment instrument with the code known only to the holder should not be considered sufficient evidence of the holder’s negligence. Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of the electronic funds transfer instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered null and void.
Justification
The amendment is based on amendment 63 of the draftswomen and should be taken as a recital explaining Article 46.
Amendment 13 RECITAL 22
(22) Provision should be made for the allocation of losses in the case of unauthorised payment transactions. However, those provisions should not apply to payment service users which are enterprises exceeding the size of a micro enterprise as defined by Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 20 May 200323, since such enterprises are normally in a position to assess the risk of fraud and take countervailing measures.	(22) Provision should be made for the allocation of losses in the case of unauthorised payment transactions. Different provisions may apply to payment service users who are professional users, since such users are normally in a position to assess the risk of fraud and take countervailing measures.
Justification
Corporates execute more payments than consumers so statistically will be subject to more errors. They should also enjoy similar protection but bearing larger shares of losses.
Amendment 14 RECITAL 24
(24) In view of the speed with which modern fully automated payment systems process payment transactions, which means that after a certain point payment orders cannot be revoked without high manual intervention costs, it is necessary to specify a clear deadline for revocations, in order to allow efficient processing while ensuring legal certainty for all the parties involved. It is appropriate to define that point in time as the point of acceptance by the payment service provider and to provide that it should be communicated explicitly or implicitly to the payment service user.	(24) In view of the speed with which modern fully automated payment systems process payment transactions, which means that after a certain point payment orders cannot be revoked without high manual intervention costs, it is necessary to specify a point at which a payment order becomes irrevocable in order to allow efficient processing while ensuring legal certainty for all the parties involved. It is appropriate to define that point in time as the point at which the payment order is received by the payment service provider. However, where the payment service provider has not processed the payment it should be possible for the payment service user to request that it not be executed.
Amendment 15 RECITAL 26
(26) With regard to fees, experience has shown that the sharing of fees between payer and payee is the most efficient system since it facilitates the straight through processing of payments. Provision should therefore be made for fees to be levied directly on the payer and the payee by their respective payment service providers. However, that should apply only when both the payer’s and the payee’s payment service provider are located in the Community and where the transaction does not require currency exchange.	(26) With regard to fees, experience has shown that the sharing of fees between payer and payee is the most efficient system since it facilitates the straight-through processing of payments. Provision should, in the normal course, therefore be made for fees to be levied directly on the payer and the payee by their respective payment service providers. However, that should apply only where the transaction does not require currency exchange. In many commercial, employment or tax transactions it is customary or essential for one party to bear all the costs. Aalthough fee sharing should be the norm, therefore, exceptions allowing the entire costs to be borne by the payer or the payee may be agreed between the payer or payee and their respective payment service provider.
Amendment 16 RECITAL 27
(27) In order to improve the efficiency of payments throughout the Community, a maximum one day execution time should be set for all payments initiated by the payer which do not require currency conversion, including credit transfers and money remittances. For all other payments, such as payments initiated by or through the payee, including direct debits and card payments, in the absence of an explicit agreement between the payment service provider and the payment service user setting a longer execution time, the one-day execution time should apply. In the case of purely national payment, however, in view of the fact that national payment infrastructures are often highly efficient and in order to prevent any deterioration in current service levels, Member States should be allowed to maintain rules specifying an execution time shorter than one day.	(27) In order to improve the efficiency of payments throughout the Community, a maximum two-day execution time should be aimed at all payments initiated by the payer in euro and all other EU currencies, including credit transfers and money remittances. For all other payments, such as payments initiated by or through the payee, including direct debits and card payments, in the absence of an explicit agreement between the payment service provider and the payment service user setting a longer execution time, the two-day execution time should also apply. In the case of purely national payment, however, in view of the fact that national payment infrastructures are often highly efficient and in order to prevent any deterioration in current service levels, Member States should be allowed to maintain rules specifying an execution time shorter than one day, where appropriate.
Amendment 17 RECITAL 27 A (new)
	Whereas at present it is not feasible to require investment in systems to facilitate payments more quickly than up to the end of the second business day following the day of execution (D+2), it is desirable that, by 2014, all payment transactions should be available to the payee on the first business day following the day of execution.
Amendment 18 RECITAL 27 B (new)
	(27b) There is a need to encourage the mobility of credit institutions’ customers, specifically by introducing bank account number portability, or by means of alternative services with the same aim, when changing their credit institution and by simplifying the opening of a bank account in another Member State.
Amendment 19 RECITAL 28
(28) Given the differences between the rules governing the operation of payment systems within the Community and those governing payment systems in third countries, it is appropriate that the provisions on execution for the full amount and execution time be restricted to cases where the payment service providers both of the payer and of the payee are located in the Community.	(28) The provisions on execution for the full amount and execution time should constitute good practice where one of the payment service providers is not located in the Community.
Amendment 20 RECITAL 29
(29) It is essential for the payment service user to know the real costs and charges of payment services in order to make an appropriate choice. Accordingly, the use of non-transparent pricing methods should not be allowed, since it is commonly accepted that those methods make it extremely difficult for users to establish the real price of the payment service. Specifically, the use of value dating to the disadvantage of the user should not be permitted.	(29) It is essential for payment service users to know the real costs and charges of payment services in order to make their choice. Accordingly, the use of non-transparent pricing methods should not be allowed, since it is commonly accepted that those methods make it extremely difficult for users to establish the real price of the payment service. Specifically, the use of value dating to the disadvantage of the user should not be permitted.
Amendment 21 RECITAL 30
(30) The smooth and efficient functioning of the payment system depends on the user being able to rely on the payment service provider executing the payment transaction correctly and within the agreed time. However, in formal terms, there is little to prevent the provider from doing so. First, the provider is in a position to assess the risks involved in the payment transaction which it has accepted for execution. Secondly, it is the provider which provides the payment system, makes arrangements to recall misplaced or wrongly allocated funds and decides in most cases on the intermediaries involved in the execution of a transaction. Thirdly, the large number of payment transactions carried out makes it easier for the provider to mutualise the risk of errors or malfunctions in the payment system and to reflect that risk in its charges. In view of all those considerations, it is entirely appropriate to impose strict liability on the payment service provider in respect of the execution of a payment transaction accepted from the user. However, the provisions on strict liability should not apply in full where the payment service provider of the payee is located outside the Community.	(30) The smooth and efficient functioning of the payment system depends on the user being able to rely on the payment service provider executing the payment transaction correctly and within the agreed time. Usually, the provider is in a position to assess the risks involved in the payment transaction which it has accepted for execution. It is the provider which provides the payment system, makes arrangements to recall misplaced or wrongly allocated funds and decides in most cases on the intermediaries involved in the execution of a transaction. In view of all those considerations, it is entirely appropriate, except where there is force majeure, to impose strict liability on the payment service provider in respect of the execution of a payment transaction accepted from the user.
Amendment 22 RECITAL 31 A (new)
	(31a) This Directive should safeguard the effectiveness of payment instruments, which are used very effectively and in a large number of annual transactions in some Member States and which present negligible risks to the aims of this Directive.
Justification
You are referred to the justification to the proposed new Article 53a to which this recital relates.
Amendment 23 RECITAL 32
(32)     In order to facilitate effective fraud prevention and combat payment fraud across the Community, provision should be made for the efficient exchange of data between payment service providers who should be allowed to collect, process and exchange personal data relating to persons involved in payment fraud. All those activities should be conducted in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.	(Does not affect the English version.)
Amendment 24 RECITAL 40
(40) In the interests of legal certainty, it is appropriate to make transitional arrangements in accordance with which persons who have commenced the activities of payment institutions in accordance with the national law in force before the entry into force of this Directive to continue those activities within the Member State concerned for a specified period.	(40) In the interests of legal certainty, it is appropriate to make transitional arrangements in accordance with which legal persons who have commenced the activities of payment institutions in accordance with the national law in force before the entry into force of this Directive to continue those activities within the Member State concerned for a specified period.
Amendment 25 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
This Directive lays down the rules in accordance with which Member States shall distinguish the following four categories of payment service provider:	1. This Directive lays down the rules in accordance with which Member States shall distinguish the following five categories of payment service provider:
Amendment 26 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A)
(a) credit institutions within the meaning of Directive 2000/12/EC;	(a) credit institutions within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 2000/12/EC;
Amendment 27 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B)
(b) electronic money institutions within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC;	(b) electronic money institutions within the meaning of Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 2000/46/EC;
Amendment 28 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)
(d) other natural or legal persons who have been granted authorisation in accordance with Article 6 of this Directive to provide and execute payment services throughout the Community, hereinafter “payment institutions”.	(d) payment institutions within the meaning of this Directive;.
Justification
The rapporteur does not consider it appropriate to allow natural persons to exercise the activities of payments institutions.
Amendment 29 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D A) (new)
	(da) central bank,s when they do not fulfil tasks assigned to them in Article 105(2) of the EC Treaty.
Amendment 30 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	or their regional or local authorities shall not be considered to constitute payment service providers.
Amendment 31 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2
This Directive also lays down rules concerning transparency conditions, and the respective rights and obligations of users and providers, in relation to the provision of payment services as a regular occupation or business activity.	2. This Directive also lays down rules concerning transparency conditions, and the respective rights and obligations of payment service users and payment service providers, in relation to the provision of payment services as a regular occupation or business activity.
Amendment 32 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3
Central banks acting as monetary authorities and public authorities which provide payment services are not considered to be payment service providers.	deleted
Amendment 33 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 3 A (new)
	This Directive shall not apply to credit unions that are regulated under national law.
Justification
Credit unions are generally small-scale providers of savings and loan services to members who share a common bond. They play an important role in combating financial exclusion. Many do not operate on a daily basis and therefore would be unable to comply with some of the conduct of business provisions in the directive. They are by nature local institutions and cross-border transactions are very unlikely to be involved.
Amendment 34 ARTICLE 2
1. This Directive shall apply only to business activities, listed in the Annex, consisting in the execution of payment transactions on behalf of a natural or legal person, hereinafter “payment services”, where at least one of the payment service providers is located in the Community.	This Directive shall apply to payment services within the Community. However, notwithstanding Article 65, Titles III and IV of this Directive shall apply only where both payment services or the sole service provider in the transaction are located in the Community.
However, for payment services where the amount of the transaction exceeds EUR 50 000, Titles III and IV shall not apply.	However, Titles III and IV shall not apply where the payment service user:   a) is a professional user as defined in Article 4, and b) has agreed to alternative conditions by contract.
For the purposes of this Directive, a payment transaction shall consist in the act, initiated by the payer or by the payee, of depositing, withdrawing or transferring funds from a payer to a payee, irrespective of any underlying obligations between the payment service users.
2. Save where otherwise provided, this Directive shall apply to payment services made in any currency.	Save where otherwise provided, this Directive shall apply to payment services made in euro or any other official currency of one of the Member States.
Amendment 35 ARTICLE 3, POINT (A)
(a) transactions consisting solely of a transfer of cash from the payer to the payee;	(a) payment transactions consisting solely of a transfer of cash directly from the payer to the payee, without transforming the cash into scriptural money, or into electronic money within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC including payment transactions where the payer and payee are the same person, or the payer has authorised the payee’s withdrawal, and the transaction involves the withdrawal of cash;
Justification
Necessary to remove the obligation to provide information on a transaction for the withdrawal of cash from a payment account where the payer and payee is the same person.
Amendment 36 ARTICLE 3, POINT (D)
(d) cash refunds provided by the payee to the payer after a payment transaction following an explicit request by the payment service user made just before the execution of a payment transaction through a payment card and completely independent of the cost of the good or services purchased;	(d) cash provided by the payee to the payer as part of a payment transaction following an explicit request by the payment service user just before the execution of a payment transaction through a payment for the purchase of goods or services;
Amendment 37 ARTICLE 3, POINT (E)
(e) change of foreign currency into local currency and vice versa , that is to say, cash to cash operations, where the funds are not held as a cash deposit on a payment account;	(e) money exchange business, that is to say, cash to cash operations, where the funds are not held on a payment account;
Amendment 38 ARTICLE 3, POINT F, POINT (II A) (new)
	(iia) paper-based drafts in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 7 June 1930, which provides for a uniform law on bills of exchange and promissory notes;
Amendment 39 ARTICLE 3, POINT F, POINT (III)
(iii) paper-based vouchers;	deleted
Amendment 40 ARTICLE 3, POINT F, POINT (IV)
(iv) paper-based traveller’s cheques;	deleted
Amendment 41 ARTICLE 3, POINT F, POINT (V)
(v) paper-based promissory notes;	deleted
Justification
Paper-based payment instruments other than cheques (i.e. vouchers representing substantial amounts or traveller’s cheques), which are governed by the Geneva Convention, should be subject to the provisions of this directive. Excluding them, as is currently envisaged, would infringe the principle of technological neutrality, as paper-based instruments would not be subject to any regulation at European level while electronic instruments are subject to the rules of Directive 2000/46/EC, the so-called Electronic Money Directive.
Amendment 42 ARTICLE 3, POINT G
(g) payment transactions carried out within a payment or security clearing and settlement system or between clearing or settlement agents, central counterparties and/or central banks, and payment service providers, as well as their tied agents or subsidiaries thereof, except for Article 23;	(g) payment transactions carried out within a payment or security clearing and settlement system or between clearing or settlement agents, central counterparties and/or central banks, and payment service providers, as well as their tied agents or subsidiaries thereof, without prejudice to Article 23;
Amendment 43 ARTICLE 3, POINT I
(i) services that can be used to acquire goods or services only within a limited network of affiliated service providers and are based on instruments like vouchers and cards in so far as such instruments are not redeemable;	(i) services based on instruments which are either i) prepaid and non-redeemable to the user and where the nominal value is dedicated to a defined usage, or ii) instruments of a more general nature, where these are used to acquire goods and services only within a limited network of affiliated service providers as defined by the issuer.
Amendment 44 ARTICLE 3, POINT J
(j) payment transactions executed by means of a mobile telephone or any other digital or IT device, where all the following conditions are met:	(j) payment transactions executed by means of any telecommunication, digital or IT device, where the good or service is provided to the device itself and payment is made directly to the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network and not to a third party.
i) the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network is closely involved in the development of the digital goods or electronic communication services provided;
ii) the goods and services cannot be delivered in the absence of the service provider;
iii) there is no alternative option for remuneration;
Amendment 45 ARTICLE 3, POINT (K)
(k) payment transactions carried out between payment service providers as well as tied agents or subsidiaries.	(k) payment transactions carried out between payment service providers as well as between tied agents or branches, for their own account.
Amendment 46 ARTICLE 4, POINT 1, POINTS (I) and (II)
(i) if the payment institution is a natural person, the Member State where the head office of the payment service provider is situated;
(ii) if the payment institution is a legal person, the Member State in which its registered office is situated;	(ii) the Member State in which the registered office of the payment institution is situated;
Justification
Consequential changes to modification of Article 1 (1) (d).
Amendment 47 ARTICLE 4, POINT 2
(2) “host Member State” means the Member State other than the home Member State in which a payment service provider has a branch or a tied agent or provides payment services;	(2) “host Member State” means the Member State other than the home Member State in which a payment institution has a branch or a tied agent or provides payment services;
Amendment 48 ARTICLE 4, POINT 2 A (new)
	(2a) “payment service” means business activities listed in the Annex, comprising the execution of payment transactions on behalf of a natural or legal person;
Amendment 49 ARTICLE 4, POINT 2 B (new)
	(2b) “payment institution” means legal persons who have been granted authorisation in accordance with Article 6 of this Directive to provide and execute payment services throughout the Community;
Amendment 50 ARTICLE 4, POINT 2 C (new)
	(2c) “payment transaction” means the act, initiated by the payer or the payee, of placing, transferring or withdrawing funds, irrespective of any underlying obligations between the payer or the payee;
Amendment 51 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 A (new)
	(3a) “registered office” means the registered office of an undertaking, where and in so far as that undertaking operates as a payment service provider; in addition to the registered place of principal representation, it may be any place at which the undertaking maintains a subsidiary, branch, outside agency, acceptance point or local office, and any place at which a representative of the undertaking maintains his business address under the undertaking’s name as its representative.
Justification
The registered office issue (of an enterprise) is not clearly defined.
Amendment 52 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 B (new)
	(3b)‘open payment system’ means a payment system where the payer and the payee generally have different payment service providers, both operating within the same payment system, or, in the case of debit and credit card and similar transactions, a payment system where the payer and payee generally have different payment service providers operating within the payment system which are directly contractually linked with other providers in the system and not just with a central licensing party, and which may, in turn, be linked to other providers under the payment system’s rules through an agreement with a provider operating in the payment system;
Amendment 53 ARTICLE 4, POINT 4
(4) “payer” means a natural or legal person who has the right of disposal of funds and who allows them to be transferred to a payee;	(4) “payer” means a natural or legal person who is the holder of the payment account or who as account-holder permits the transfer of funds from an account or, where there is no payment account, a natural or legal person who has the right of disposal of funds and who places the order for a payment transaction;
Amendment 54 ARTICLE 4, POINT 5
(5) “payee” means a natural or legal person who is the intended final recipient of funds which have been the subject of a payment transaction;	(5) “payee” means a natural or legal person who is the intended recipient of funds which have been the subject of a payment transaction;
Amendment 55 ARTICLE 4, POINT 6 A (new)
	(6a) 'professional user' means any natural or legal person who is acting exclusively for purposes related to that person's trade, business or profession;
Amendment 56 ARTICLE 4, POINT 6 B (new)
	(6b) 'framework contract' means a payment service agreement characterised by the fact that it commits a payment service provider to the future execution of individual or successive payment transactions on the order of the payer;
Justification
Vide amendment on Article 29.
Amendment 57 ARTICLE 4, POINT 7
(7) “payment account” means an account held in the name of a payment service user which is used exclusively for payment transactions;	(7) “payment account” means an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for payment transactions;
Amendment 58 ARTICLE 4, POINT 8
(8) “funds” means cash, scriptural money and electronic money as referred to in Directive 2000/46/EC;	(8) “funds” means banknotes and coins, scriptural money and electronic money as referred to in Directive 2000/46/EC;
Amendment 59 ARTICLE 4, POINT 11 A (new)
	(11a) “execution time” shall mean the number of business days between the day of acceptance of the payment order by the service provider and the point in time when the amount is made available to the payee;
Amendment 60 ARTICLE 4, POINT 12
(12) “reference exchange rate” means the exchange rate which is used as the basis to calculate any currency exchange and which comes from a source which can be verified by both parties of a payment service agreement;	(12) “reference exchange rate” means the exchange rate, either made available by the payment service provider, or from a publicly available source, which the payment service provider and payment service user agree shall be used as the basis on which a currency exchange related to a payment transaction shall be calculated;
Justification
There is no such thing as an “independent index or base” rate for exchange rates so it may not be possible for both parties to separately verify the source of a reference exchange rate. This amendment is to clarify this point whilst preserving the important requirement for transparency to the benefit of consumers and competition, and that the source is agreed between the parties.
Amendment 61 ARTICLE 4, POINT 13
(13) “authentication” means a procedure which allows the payment service provider to verify that the user issuing the payment order is authorised to do so;	(13) “authentication” means a procedure which allows the payment service provider to verify that the user initiating the payment order is authorised to do so;
Amendment 62 ARTICLE 4, POINT 14
(14) “reference interest rate” means the interest rate which is used as the basis to calculate any interest to be applied and which comes from a source which can be verified by both parties to a payment service agreement;	(14) “reference interest rate” means the interest rate which is used as the basis to calculate any interest to be applied and which comes from a publicly available source which can be verified by both parties to a payment service agreement;
Amendment 63 ARTICLE 4, POINT 15
(15) “unique identifier” means the information specified by the payment service provider and to be provided by the payment service user to identify unambiguously the other payment service user involved in a payment transaction, and consisting of the IBAN (International Bank Account Number), the BIC (Bank Identifier Code), a bank account number, a card number or a name;	(15) “unique identifier” means the combination of letters, numbers or symbols specified to the payment service user by the payment service provider and to be provided by the payment service user to identify unambiguously the other payment service user involved in a payment transaction;
Justification
This definition allows flexibility for different payment systems to define their own requirements, while still allowing the SEPA systems to require the use of IBANs. It also allows flexibility for any future identifiers arising from new technology or customer demand.
Amendment 64 ARTICLE 4, POINT 16
(16)     “tied agent” means a natural or legal person which acts on behalf of a payment institution in carrying out payment services;	(16)     “tied agent” means a legal person which acts on behalf of a payment institution in carrying out payment services;
Amendment 65 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19
(19) “durable medium” means any instrument which enables information addressed personally to the payment service user to be stored in a manner accessible for future reference for a period of time adequate to the purposes of the information and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored; in particular, durable medium covers printouts by account printers, floppy disks, CD‑ROMs, DVDs and hard drives of personal computers on which electronic mail is stored but excludes Internet sites, unless such sites meet the criteria specified in the first sentence of this point.	(19) “durable medium” means any instrument which enables the payment service user to store information addressed personally to him in a way accessible for future reference for a period of time adequate to the purposes of the information and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored;
Amendment 66 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 A (new)
	(19a) “business day” means a day on which the payment service provider of either the payer or the payee or, if applicable, the intermediary involved in the execution of a payment transaction, are open for business, as is required for the transaction;
Amendment 67 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 B (new)
	(19b) “administrator” means any person or body appointed by the administrative or judicial authorities whose task is to administer reorganisation measures;
Amendment 68 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 C (new)
	(19c) “administrative or judicial authorities” means such administrative or judicial authorities of the Member States that are competent for the purposes of reorganisation measures or winding-up proceedings;
Amendment 69 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 D (new)
	(19d) “reorganisation measures” means measures that are intended to preserve or restore the financial situation of a payment institution and which could affect third parties' pre-existing rights, including measures involving the possibility of a suspension of payments, suspension of enforcement measures or reduction of claims;
Amendment 70 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 E (new)
	(19e) “liquidator” means any person or body appointed by the administrative or judicial authorities whose task is to administer winding-up proceedings;
Amendment 71 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 F (new)
	(19f) “winding-up proceedings” means collective proceedings opened and monitored by the administrative or judicial authorities with the aim of realising assets under the supervision of those authorities, including where the proceedings are terminated by a composition or other, similar measure;
Amendment 72 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 H (new)
	(19h) “micro payments” means a contract concerning payments not exceeding EUR 10.
Amendment 73 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
For authorisation as a payment institution, a written application shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the home Member State, together with the following:	For authorisation as a payment institution, an application shall be submitted to the competent authorities of the home Member State, together with the following:
Amendment 74 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B)
(b) a business plan including a tentative budget calculation for the first three financial years which would allow the presumption that the applicant is able to employ the appropriate and proportionate systems, resources and procedures to operate soundly;	(b) a business plan including a forecast budget calculation for the first three financial years which demonstrates that the applicant is able to employ the appropriate and proportionate systems, resources and procedures to operate soundly;
Amendment 75 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B A) (new)
	(ba) evidence that the amount of initial capital outlined in Article 5b is at the free and unlimited disposal of the payment institution.
Amendment 76 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B B) (new)
	(bb) a description of the procedure for the legal separation of funds in accordance with Article 5b(4)(a).
Amendment 77 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) a description of the applicant’s administrative and accounting procedures, such as would allow the presumption that it conducts sound and adequate procedures and controls;	(c) a description of the applicant’s administrative, risk management and accounting procedures, which demonstrates that these controls are proportionate, appropriate, sound and adequate;
Amendment 78 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)
(d) a description of the internal control mechanisms which the applicant has established in order to comply with obligations in relation to money laundering under Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;	(d) a description of the internal control mechanisms which the applicant has established in order to comply with obligations in relation to money laundering and terrorist financing under Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Amendment 79 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (E)
(e) a description of the applicant’s risk management procedures;	deleted
Justification
Merged into (c)
Amendment 80 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (H)
(h) where the applicant is a legal person, the identity of the natural persons who are its representatives, its majority shareholders and who act as directors as well as evidence that those persons are of good repute and have appropriate knowledge and ability to perform payment services;	(h) the identity of the natural persons who are its representatives, its majority shareholders and who act as directors as well as evidence that those persons are of good repute and have appropriate knowledge and ability to perform payment services;
Amendment 81 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (I)
(i) the identity of the lead manager and evidence that the person who effectively directs the applicant’s business is of good repute and has appropriate knowledge and ability to perform payment services;	(i) the identity of directors and persons responsible for the management of the payment institution and evidence that they are of good repute and possess appropriate knowledge and ability to perform payment services, as determined by the home Member State of the payment institution;
Amendment 82 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (J)
(j) the applicant’s legal status;	(j) the applicant’s legal status and articles of association;
Amendment 83 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (K)
(k) the address from which the relevant documents may be obtained.	(k) the address of the head office in accordance with Article 14.
Amendment 84 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 2
For the purposes of point (c), the applicant shall provide a description of the organisational arrangements it has set up with a view to taking all reasonable steps to protect the interests of its users and to ensure continuity and reliability in the performance of payment services.	For the purposes of points (b) and (c), the applicant shall provide a description of its audit arrangements and the organisational arrangements it has set up with a view to taking all reasonable steps to protect the interests of its users and to ensure continuity and reliability in the performance of payment services.
Amendment 85 ARTICLE 5 A (new)
	Article 5a The European Committee of Banking Supervisors shall give guidance on the interpretation of the requirements in Article 5.
Justification
The integrity of the financial services sector would benefit from a solid and common definition of standards regarding the interpretation of the requirements to register as a payment institution.
Amendment 86 ARTICLE 5 B (new)
	Article 5b   Solvency requirements and other measures to ensure the protection of client funds in the course of transmission   1. Member States shall ensure that the following measures are taken to protect the funds of payments services users in the course of transmission.   2. Payment institutions shall hold capital as defined in Article 57 (a) and (b) of Directive 2006/48/EC as follows:   a) where the payment institution carries on only those activities mentioned in point 7 of the Annex, its capital shall at no time be less than the minimum required by the law of its home Member State for the incorporation of a limited liability company;   b) where the payment institution carries on any of the activities mentioned in points 5, 8 or 9 of the Annex or in Article 10 (1)(b) and (c), its capital shall at no time be less than EUR 100 000;   c) where the payments institution carries on any of the activities mentioned in points 1, 2 or 3 of the Annex, its capital shall at no time be less than EUR 500 000 or the equivalent of one quarter of the payment institution's fixed overheads for the preceding year whichever is the higher.   3. Notwithstanding the minimum capital requirements set out above, competent authorities shall be satisfied that the payment institution holds sufficient capital to support all its business activities at all times.   4. A payments institution that carries on those activities mentioned in point 7 of the Annex shall put in place appropriate safeguards to protect the funds of payment service users. Either the funds shall be:   a) ring fenced, as follows:   (i) in relation to funds received from payment service users, which have been accepted for a payment transaction, the payment institution shall segregate such funds from other funds accepted for activities other than payment services and shall account for them separately in its books;   (ii) the payment institution shall keep the funds of a payment service user under an account name which clearly identifies the payment service user;   (iii) no funds of a payment service user may be commingled with the funds of any natural or legal person other than the payment service user on whose behalf the funds are held;   (iv) the funds of a payment service user shall be insulated from any third-party action against the payment institution;   (v) in the event that one or more reorganisation measures are adopted or winding-up proceedings are opened against a payment institution, the relevant administrative or judicial authorities, or the relevant administrator or liquidator, as the case may be, shall return the funds of all payment service users promptly to such payment service users in priority to all other claims against that payment institution; and   (vi) in the event that one or more reorganisation measures are adopted or winding-up proceedings are opened against a payment institution and insufficient funds are available for remittance of all the funds due to payment service users, the competent administrative or judicial authorities, or the relevant administrator or liquidator, as the case may be, shall distribute promptly to payment service users the funds of such payment service users on a pro rata basis according to their claims and in priority to all other claims against that payment institution;   or;   b) covered by an insurance policy or bank guarantee covering the whole territory of the Community from an EU incorporated insurance company or bank for an amount equivalent to that which would have been segregated and separately accounted for according to paragraph 4 (a) (i) in the absence of the insurance policy or bank guarantee, payable in the event that the payment institution is unable to meet its financial obligations. The terms of such insurance policy or bank guarantee shall be in a form acceptable to the competent authorities of the Member State of incorporation of the payments institution.   5. The provisions of paragraph 4 shall not apply where the proceeds of the payment are made available to the beneficiary by the end of the second business day following acceptance.
Amendment 87 ARTICLE 5 C (new)
	Article 5c Competent authorities shall ensure that where a payment institution carries out one or more of the activities at paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Annex it establishes a client account to ensure that those funds are appropriately segregated from the other activities it undertakes.
Amendment 89 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1
Authorisation shall be granted if the information and evidence accompanying the application complies with all the requirements laid down in Article 5.	An authorisation shall be granted if the information and evidence accompanying the application complies with all the requirements laid down in Article 5 and if the competent authorities, having scrutinised the application, reach a favourable overall assessment. Before an authorisation is granted, the competent authorities may consult, where relevant, the national central bank or other relevant public authorities.
Justification
Payment institutions must be subject to appropriate quality supervision and meet definite standards in key areas.
Amendment 90 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2
The application for authorisation shall not be examined in the light of requirements other than those laid down in Article 5.	deleted
Amendment 91 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	The competent authorities shall refuse to grant an authorisation if, taking into account the need to ensure the sound and prudent management of a payment institution, they are not satisfied as to the suitability of the shareholders or members that have qualifying holdings.
Amendment 92 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2 B (new)
	Where close links exist between the payment institution and other natural or legal persons, as defined in Article 1(26) of Directive 2000/12/EC, the competent authorities shall grant an authorisation only if those links do not prevent the effective exercise of their supervisory functions.
Amendment 93 ARTICLE 7, PARAGRAPH 1
Within three months of receiving the application or, should the application be incomplete, within three months of receiving the information required for the decision, the competent authority shall inform the applicant whether its application has been granted or refused.	Within three months of receiving the application or, should the application be incomplete, within three months of receiving all the information required for the decision, the competent authority shall inform the applicant whether its application has been granted or refused.
Amendment 94 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall establish a register of payment institutions.	Member States shall establish a register of all authorised payment institutions and their branches.
Amendment 95 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 2
The register shall be updated on a regular basis. It shall be publicly available for consultation and accessible online.	The register shall identify the services and/or activities laid down in Article 10 for which the payment institution is authorised. It shall be publicly available for consultation, accessible online, and updated on a regular basis.
Amendment 96 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. Payment institutions shall be entitled to engage in the following activities:	1. Payment institutions shall be entitled to engage exclusively in the following activities:
Amendment 97 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A)
(a) the provision of payment services;	(a) the provision of payment services set out in the Annex;
Amendment 98 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B)
(b) the provision of operational and related ancillary services such as the guaranteeing execution of payment transactions, foreign exchange services, safekeeping activities, and storage and processing of data;	(b) the provision of operational and closely related ancillary services such as ensuring the execution of payment transactions, foreign exchange services, safekeeping activities, and storage and processing of data;
Amendment 99 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) the accessing and operation of payment systems for the purposes of transferring, clearing and settling funds, including any instruments and procedures relating to the systems.	(c) the accessing and operation of payment systems for the purposes of transferring, clearing and settling funds, including any instruments and procedures relating to the systems, without prejudice to Article 23.
Amendment 101 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
In the context of point (a), funds received by payment institutions from payment service users with a view to the provision of payment services shall not constitute a deposit or other repayable funds within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2000/12/EC, or electronic money within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC.	2. When payment institutions engage in the provision of payment services under paragraph 1(a), they may only hold payment accounts used exclusively for payment transactions; any funds received by payment institutions from payment service users with a view to the provision of payment services shall not constitute a deposit or other repayable funds within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2000/12/EC, or electronic money within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 2000/46/EC.
Amendment 102 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Institutions shall not be entitled to grant credit, unless: a) the credit is closely linked to the payments business of the payment institution; and b) the credit is made from the payment institution's own funds and not from client funds held for payments business.
Justification
Amendment 100 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 2 B (new)
	2b. Payment institutions may not conduct deposit business, offer credit services or act as guarantors.
Justification
For the sake of consumer confidence in the financial system, payment institutions should confine their operations to the activities listed in the annex. The amendment also provides clarification, to prevent circumvention
Amendment 103 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Funds received from payment service users and specifically accepted in connection with a payment service shall not be used by payment institutions to support other business activities other than payment services. The payment institution shall keep separately in its books the payment service users funds, accepted for a payment transaction, from other funds accepted for activities other than payment services.	3. Funds received from payment service users and specifically accepted in connection with a payment service shall be earmarked for the specific transaction in respect of which they are provided to the payment institution and shall not be used by payment institutions to support business activities other than the payment services requested by the payment service user.
Justification
Provision on separation of funds redrafted in Article 10(a) (new) paragraph 1.
Amendment 104 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 3
3. The business activities of authorised payment institutions shall be non‑exclusive and shall not be restricted to payment services, having regard to the applicable national and Community law.	deleted
Amendment 105 ARTICLE 11, TITLE
Use of tied agents, outsources or subsidiaries	Use of branches, tied agents, or entities to whom activities are outsourced
Amendment 106 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 1
1. In cases where a payment institution intends to provide payment services through a tied agent or a subsidiary, it shall communicate the name and address of the tied agent or subsidiary to be used to the competent authorities in its home Member State.	1. In cases where a payment institution intends to provide payment services through a tied agent or a branch, it shall communicate the name and address of the tied agent or branch to be used to the competent authorities in its home Member State.
Amendment 107 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Where a payment institution intends to outsource some or all of its operations, it shall inform the competent authority accordingly.	2. A payment institution may outsource its technical, communication, IT operational and data processing functions necessary for providing payment services. Where a payment institution intends to outsource some of its operations, it shall inform the competent authorities of its home Member State accordingly.
Amendment 108 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 3
3. Payment institutions shall ensure that tied agents or subsidiaries acting on their behalf inform payment service users accordingly.	3. Payment institutions shall ensure that tied agents, branches or outsourced entities acting on their behalf inform payment service users accordingly. Payment institutions shall ensure that tied agents or subsidiaries or outsourced entities have appropriate knowledge and ability to ensure continuity and reliability in the performance of payment services.
Amendment 109 ARTICLE 11, PARAGRAPH 3 A (new)
	3a. Tied agents and natural or legal persons performing activities or being responsible for the outsourced activities of the payment institutions shall comply with the requirements laid down in this Directive with regard to the prevention of money laundering.
Amendment 110 ARTICLE 12, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, where payment institutions rely on third parties for the performance of operational functions, those payment institutions take reasonable steps to avoid undue operational risk.	1. Member States shall ensure that, where payment institutions rely on third parties for the performance of operational functions, those payment institutions take reasonable steps to ensure that the requirements of this Directive are met.
Amendment 111 ARTICLE 12, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Member States shall require that payment institutions remain fully liable for any acts of their managers, employees, or any tied agent or subsidiary, pursuant to this Directive.	2. Member States shall require that payment institutions remain fully liable for any acts of their employees, or any tied agent or branch, and entities to which activities are outsourced, pursuant to this Directive.
Justification
“Manager” is not defined and always an employee.
Amendment 112 ARTICLE 13
Member States shall require payment institutions to keep records of all services and transactions for a reasonable time, but not more than five years.	Member States shall require payment institutions to keep all appropriate records for the purpose of this Title for at least five years, without prejudice to Directive 2005/60/EC or other relevant Community or national legislation.
Amendment 113 ARTICLE 14, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall require any payment institution which is a legal person and which, under the national law of its home Member State, has a registered office to have its head office in the same Member State as its registered office.	Member States shall require any payment institution which, under the national law of its home Member State, has a registered office to have its head office in the same Member State as its registered office.
Justification
.
Amendment 114 ARTICLE 14, PARAGRAPH 2
Any payment institution not covered by the first paragraph shall be required to have its head office in the Member State in which it actually carries on its business.	deleted
Justification
Consequential change of the deletion of Article 21.
Amendment 115 ARTICLE 15, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall designate as the competent authorities responsible for implementation of this Title either public authorities, or bodies recognised by national law or by public authorities expressly empowered for that purpose by national law.	1. Member States shall designate the same competent authorities as are empowered by law or regulation to supervise credit institutions as responsible for implementation of this Title.
Justification
The rapporteur considers it appropriate that the competent authorities responsible for the supervision of banks are made responsible for the supervision of payment institutions in view of the similarity of the activities of payments institutions with some activities of banks in order that the necessary regulatory competence is assured.
Amendment 116 ARTICLE 15, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
The competent authorities shall be such as to guarantee independence from economic actors and to avoid conflicts of interest. They shall not be payment institutions, credit institutions electronic money institutions, or post office giro institutions.	deleted
Justification
Consequential change to modification of Article 15 paragraph 1.
Amendment 117 ARTICLE 15, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 A (new)
	Where a payment institution is authorised according to the derogation set in article 21, Member States may designate a different competent authority for categories of payment service providers where the activities are such that different expertise is required.
Amendment 118 ARTICLE 16, TITLE
Supervision	Ongoing supervision
Amendment 119 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2, INTRODUCTORY PART
In order to check compliance with this Title, the competent authorities may take only the following steps:	In order to check compliance with this Title, the competent authorities may take the following steps, in particular:
Amendment 120 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2, POINT (B)
(b) to carry out on site inspections with the payment institution, an outsourced entity, a tied agent or a subsidiary under the responsibility of the payment institution;	(b) to carry out on site inspections with the payment institution, any entity to whom activities are outsourced, a tied agent or any branch under the responsibility of the payment institution;
Amendment 121 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2, POINT (C)
(c) to issue recommendations and guidelines;	(c) to issue recommendations and guidelines and, if applicable, other binding administrative actions;
Amendment 122 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2, POINT (E)
(e) to suspend or withdraw authorisation in cases where the conditions for authorisation in accordance with Article 5 are no longer fulfilled.	(e) to suspend or withdraw authorisation in cases where the conditions for authorisation in accordance with Article 5 or the provisions of Articles 5b or 10 are not or are no longer fulfilled.
Amendment 124 ARTICLE 18, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall ensure that decisions taken by the competent authorities in respect of a payment institution in pursuance of laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with this Directive may be contested before the courts.	Member States shall ensure that decisions taken by the competent authorities in respect of a payment institution in pursuance of laws, regulations and administrative provisions adopted in accordance with this Directive may be contested before the courts by the natural and legal persons concerned, including by consumer organisations. Consumer organisations shall have the right to be consulted in procedures which they have not initiated.
Justification
For the purposes of protecting consumers, consumer organisations must also have the right to apply to the courts, as provided for in Article 18, and to be consulted when they have a legitimate interest in such proceedings.
Amendment 125 ARTICLE 19, PARAGRAPH 2, POINT (B)
(b) central banks, the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank, in their capacity as monetary authorities, and, where appropriate, other public authorities responsible for overseeing payment and settlement systems;	(b) central banks, the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank, in their capacity as monetary and oversight authorities.
Amendment 126 ARTICLE 20, PARAGRAPH 2
2. In order to carry out the controls and take the necessary steps provided for in Article 16 in respect of a branch, a tied agent or a subsidiary of a payment institution located in the territory of another Member State, the competent authority of the home Member State shall cooperate with the competent authorities in the host Member State.	2. In order to carry out the controls and take necessary steps provided for in Article 16 in respect of a branch, a tied agent or an outsourced entity of a payment institution located in the territory of another Member State, the competent authority of the home Member State shall cooperate with the competent authorities in the host Member State.
Amendment 127 ARTICLE 20, PARAGRAPH 4
4. Competent authorities shall provide each other with all relevant information, in particular in the case of infringements or suspected infringements by a branch, a tied agent or a subsidiary.	4. Competent authorities shall provide each other with all relevant information, in particular in the case of infringement or suspected infringements by a branch, a tied agent or an outsourced entity.
Amendment 128 ARTICLE 20, PARAGRAPH 4 A (new)
	4a. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the competent authorities of the host Member State shall be responsible for the supervision of compliance with obligations in relation to money laundering under Directive 2005/60/EC and regulations regarding counter terrorism.
Justification
Article 20 could lead to a lack of clarity. The tasks of each competent authority are not entirely clear. Compliance with the third directive on money laundering and the national legislation implementing the aforementioned directive can only be effectively supervised by the competent authority of the member states where the payment services are actually being offered.
Amendment 129 ARTICLE 21
1. By way of derogation from point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 1, Member States may, on a case by case basis, allow natural or legal persons to be entered in the register established under Article 8, without application of the procedure set out in Section 1, where both the following conditions are satisfied:	1. By way of derogation from point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 1, Member States may, on a case by case basis, allow businesses (including, for the purposes of this derogation only, natural persons carrying on a business) to be entered in the register established under Article 8, without application of the procedure set out in Section 1, where the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) the total business activities of the person concerned, including any tied agent or subsidiary for which it assumes full responsibility, generates a total amount of funds outstanding which were accepted for the provision of payment services and which does not exceed EUR 5 million on average over a month and EUR 6 million at any given point in time;	a) the total amount accepted by the business concerned, including any tied agent or subsidiary for which it assumes full responsibility, for the provision of payments services does not exceed EUR 5 million in any calendar month or EUR 300 000 on any day, and;
(b) such registration is considered to be in the public interest for either of the following reasons:	b) in the opinion of the competent authority such registration is considered to either;
(i) the person concerned plays a vital role in financial intermediation, providing access to payment services for underprivileged social groups, in particular where the provision by other providers of the services in question is unlikely or would take a long time;	(i) benefit the effective implementation of money laundering rules or mechanisms to prevent terrorist financing; or
(ii) it is necessary for the effective implementation of money laundering rules or mechanisms to prevent terrorist financing.	(ii) facilitate under privileged social groups' access to payment services, and
	c) none of the natural persons involved with the control or operation of the business have been convicted of offences relating to money laundering or terrorist financing. Member States shall ensure that businesses entered on the Register maintained under Article 8 as a result of the exercise of this derogation are clearly identified as such.
2. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be treated as payment institutions. However, they shall be allowed to provide payment services within the Community only within the Member State of registration.	2. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall be treated as payment institutions. However, they shall be allowed to provide only the payment service described in point 7 of Annex 1 and only within the Member State of registration.
Member States may also provide that they may engage only in certain of the activities listed in Article 10.
3. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall notify the competent authorities of any change in their situation which is relevant to the condition specified in point (a) of paragraph 1.	3. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall notify the competent authorities of any change in their situation which is relevant to the condition specified in point (a) of paragraph 1. Member States shall ensure that where this condition is no longer fulfilled, the payments service institution shall seek authorisation within 30 calendar days according to the procedure in Article 6.
Amendment 130 ARTICLE 22, PARAGRAPH 2
In addition, it shall inform the Commission of the number of payment service providers concerned and shall, on an annual basis, inform the Commission of the total amount of funds outstanding, as referred to in point (a) of Article 21.	If a Member State avails itself of the derogation provided for in Article 21, it shall notify the Commission accordingly by the date specified in the first paragraph of Article 85(1) at the latest and shall notify it forthwith of any subsequent change. In addition, it shall inform the Commission of the number of payment service providers concerned and shall, on an annual basis, inform the Commission of the total amount of funds outstanding as at the 31st December of each calendar year, as referred to in Article 21(1)(a).
Amendment 131 ARTICLE 23, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 AND SUBPARAGRAPH 2, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. Member States shall ensure that rules on access to and operation of payment systems shall be objective and proportionate and shall not inhibit access more than is necessary to safeguard against specific risks and to protect the financial safety of the payment system.	1. Member States shall ensure that any rules on access to and operating procedures of open payment systems using an external compensation mechanism shall be objective and proportionate and shall not inhibit access more than is necessary to safeguard against specific risks and to protect the financial and operational stability of the payment system.
Payment systems may not impose any of the following requirements:	Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, open payment systems may not impose any of the following requirements:
Amendment 132 ARTICLE 23, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2, POINT (B)
(b) a rule which discriminates between authorised payment service providers in relation to the rights, obligations and entitlements of participants;	deleted
Justification
The proposed Directive should only include rules on access to payment systems and not operation of same, which activity cannot be performed by payment services providers.
Art. 1, para. 1, defines the scope of such regulation and it is within this ambit that Art. 23, para. 1, sub- para. 2, shall operate.
Art. 23, para. 1, sub-para. 2, let. B), shall be deleted. This provision, indeed, whereas does not add to the EU competition rules of non-discrimination, may be applied in a distorted manner thereby unduly curtailing the freedom of payment systems operators to regulate access to their systems in a graduated fashion, which takes into account the different features of the applicants.
Amendment 133 ARTICLE 23 A (new)
	Article 23a Prohibition of other than payment service providers to undertake payment services Member States shall prohibit natural or legal persons that are neither payment service providers nor explicitly excluded from the scope of this Directive from providing payment services as listed in the Annex.
Amendment 134 ARTICLE 23 B (new)
	Article 23b
	Mutual recognition of security certification of cards and accepting devices   1. Card payment systems that provide general purpose cards enabling cross-border transactions, in euro, within the European Union shall: (a) define appropriate security requirements based on their own risk analysis for the electronic components of their cards and for devices accepting their cards. These risk analysis and security requirements shall be communicated to the national central bank or other relevant public authorities of the Member State where the card payment system is incorporated; and (b) obtain a certificate from a security evaluation scheme approved by the Payments Committee referred to in Article 77 that their cards and the devices accepting their cards comply with these security requirements. The certificate shall benefit from mutual recognition in other Member States. 2. A security evaluation scheme can be approved by the Payments Committee only if it complies with the following principles: (a) proven methodology: the security evaluation scheme uses a security evaluation methodology which is preferably based on recognised international standard, and which must at least produce an assessment of the security compliance based on a rating scale and guarantee repeatability and reproducibility; (b) transparency: the security evaluation methodology and criteria (not including the detail of performed tests) used by the security evaluation scheme is documented and made publicly available; (c) technical ability: laboratories performing evaluations within the security evaluation scheme must have a proven technical ability. This ability must be regularly assessed; and (d) disclosure: detailed results of the security evaluation must be released to a party with a legitimate interest, on request, and following the signature of a non-disclosure agreement.
Amendment 135 TITLE III, TITLE
Transparency of conditions for payment services	Transparency of conditions and information requirements for payment services
Amendment 136 ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall require that the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium available and accessible to him the conditions in accordance with Article 26.	1. Member States shall require that the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium available and accessible to him the conditions in accordance with Article 26. They shall be provided in easily understandable words and in a clear and comprehensible form, in an official language of the Member State where the payment service is offered or in any other language agreed by the parties. The conditions shall be presented to the payment service user in the form shown in Annex 1a and shall contain the information specified in Article 26(1)(a)(ii), and (c) (including, where applicable, the exchange rate) together with information as to the amount of money to be transmitted, the currency in which the payment is to be made, and the cost of making the transaction, together with the total cost of the payment transaction. Where there is no foreign exchange information, these fields may be left blank. If the payment service user so requests, the conditions shall be provided to him/her on paper.
Justification
The rapporteur considers it vital that the consumer is presented with information in a manner which allows comparability between payment service providers. A standardised format for presentation of the most important information on pricing and delivery time is therefore proposed.
Amendment 137 ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
The payment service provider shall do so in good time before the payment service user is bound by any payment service contract covering a single payment transaction or the offer.	The payment service provider shall do so before the payment service user is bound by any payment service contract covering a single payment transaction or the offer.
Amendment 138 ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Member States shall require that payment institutions inform in a clear and unambiguous way potential payment service users that funds remitted to a payment institution, and/or transiting via such a payment institution, are not protected by any deposit guarantee scheme as such funds would be if they were remitted to, or transiting via, licensed banks.
Justification
The Directive should provide for payment service users to be fully informed of the risks they incur when transacting via a payment institution.
Payment institutions should spell out in the prior information relating to a payment service contract that funds from accepted yet not executed transactions are unsecured.
Amendment 139 Article 25, PARAGRAPH 2 B (new)
	2b. Member States shall require that payment institutions inform potential payment service users in a clear and unambiguous way, which competent authority from which Member State exercises the controls described in Article 16.
Justification
The Directive should provide for payment service users to be fully informed of the risks they incur when transacting via a payment institution. Payment institutions should spell out in the prior information relating to a payment service contract that funds from accepted yet not executed transactions are unsecured.
Amendment 140 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. Member States shall ensure that the conditions communicated comprise the following:	1. Member States shall ensure that the conditions made available comprise the following:
Justification
Brings in to line with amendment to Article 25, para 1 point 1.
Amendment 141 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A), POINT (III)
(iii) where applicable, the conditions concerning the provision and use of the payment service, including in particular safekeeping requirements for payment verification instruments and the risks involved if these are not taken and how to notify the payment service provider for the purposes of Article 46(b);	(iii) where applicable, the conditions concerning the provision and use of the payment service, including in particular safekeeping requirements for payment verification instruments and how to notify the payment service provider for the purposes of Article 46(b);
Justification
Information that has to be communicated should be limited to what is necessary and important for the consumer. It is essential that the rules are clear. The consumer can always ask for additional information if necessary in particular cases. Deletion of the last sentence of paragraph 1 follows automatically from limiting the area of application.
Amendment 142 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A), POINT (III A) (new)
	(iiia) the right and conditions regarding cancellation;
Justification
In order to protect the consumer interests, transparency of conditions for a payment service shall include such provisions.
Amendment 143 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A), POINT (V)
(v) the information to be provided in accordance with Directive 2005/…/EC;	(v) the information to be provided in accordance with Directive 2005/60/EC;
Amendment 144 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A), POINT (VI A) (new)
	(vi a) the conditions and the period of time under which the payer has a right to refund;
Justification
Similar to amendment 46 of De Vits Draft IMCO Report.
Amendment 145 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A), POINT (VI B) (new)
	(vi b) information enabling the consumer to consult tariffs;
Amendment 146 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A), POINT (VI C) (new)
	(vi c) the right of the payer to revoke a payment;
Justification
The conditions should make clear how the payer can revoke a payment.
Amendment 147 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT B
(b) a clear reference to the point in time of acceptance of a payment order as defined in Article 54(1);	(b) a clear reference to the day of execution of a payment order as defined in Article 54(1);
Justification
Consequential change to modification of Article 54.

Amendment 148

ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)

(d) an indication of the law applicable to the contract and the competent court;	(d) an indication of the law applicable to the contract, which shall be the law of the country of the payment service user, where the provider carries on activities or directs its activities there, and the competent court;

Amendment 149

ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (F A) (new)

	(fa) the procedure for transmitting consent in accordance with Articles 41 und 42.

Amendment 150 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 2
2. The conditions specified in paragraph 1 shall be set out in easily understandable words and in a clear and readable form, in an official language of the Member State where the payment service is offered or in any other language agreed by the parties.	deleted
Justification
Merged into Article 25 (1)
Amendment 151 ARTICLE 27, INTRODUCTORY PART
Subsequent to the acceptance of the payment order for execution, the payment service provider shall make available to the payer, in the same way as provided for in Articles 25(1) and 26(2), at least the following information:	Subsequent to the acceptance of the payment order for execution in accordance with Article 54, the payer’s payment service provider shall communicate to the payer on his first request, in the same way as provided for in Article 25(1), at least the following information:
Amendment 152 ARTICLE 27, INTRODUCTORY PART
Subsequent to the acceptance of the payment order for execution, the payment service provider shall make available to the payer, in the same way as provided for in Articles 25(1) and 26(2), at least the following information:	(Does not affect the English version.)
Justification
Only affects the German version, to bring it into line with the English text. Also applies to Article 28.
Amendment 153 ARTICLE 27, POINT (A)
(a) a reference enabling the payment service user to identify the payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee;	(a) a reference enabling the payer to identify the payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee, in so far as this information has not already been provided or offered to the payer;

Amendment 154

ARTICLE 27, POINT (A A) (new)

	(aa) the date of the transaction;

Justification

Partly similar to amendment 50 of De Vits Draft IMCO Report. It is necessary for consumers to know the exact date of transaction and its exact amount expressed in the currency of the transaction.

Amendment 155 ARTICLE 27, POINT (B)
(b) the amount of the payment transaction and of any commission fees and charges applied to the payment transaction that the payer had to pay to his payment service provider;	(b) the amount of the payment transaction expressed in the currency of the transaction and the amount of any commission fees and charges applied to the payment transaction that the payer had to pay to his payment service provider;
Amendment 156 ARTICLE 27, POINT (B A) (new)
	(ba) the date of the execution of the transaction;
Amendment 157 ARTICLE 27, POINT (C)
(c) where relevant, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction if it is applied by the payer’s payment service provider.	(c) where applicable, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction if it is applied by the payer’s payment service provider.
Amendment 159 ARTICLE 28, INTRODUCTORY PART
Subsequent to making funds received for the payee available to him, the payment service provider shall make available to the payee, in the same way as provided for in Articles 25(1) and 26(2), at least the following information:	Subsequent to making funds received for the payee available to him, the payee’s payment service provider shall communnicate to the payee on his first request, in the same way as provided for in Article 25(1), at least the following information:
Amendment 158 ARTICLE 28, POINT (D)
(d) where applicable the exact exchange rate used in payment transaction if it was applied by the payee's payment service provider.	(d) where applicable the exact exchange rate used in payment transaction if it was applied by the payee's payment service provider or an intermediary.
Justification
It is possible that the intermediary not the service provider of the beneficiary itself executes the exchange of monetary funds. Therefore the supplement is necessary in the wording of the draft proposal.
Amendment 160 ARTICLE 29
This Chapter applies to payment transactions covered by a payment service agreement characterised by the fact that it commits a payment service provider to execute in the future successive payment transactions or individual payment transactions on the order of the payer if the agreed conditions are met. That agreement, hereinafter “framework contract”, may contain the obligations and conditions for setting up a payment account;	This Chapter applies to payment transactions covered by a framework contract, which may contain the obligations and conditions for setting up a payment account.
Justification
The definition of ‘framework contract’ should be moved from Article 29 to the definitions article and used consistently throughout the proposed directive, replacing the concept of ‘framework agreement’ contained in recital 18 and Articles 32-33.
Amendment 161 ARTICLE 30, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall require that in good time before the payment service user is bound by any framework contract or the offer, the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium, available and accessible to the payment service user, the conditions in accordance with Article 31.	1. Member States shall require that in good time before the payment service user is bound by any framework contract or the offer, the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium, available and accessible to the payment service user, the conditions in accordance with Article 31. The conditions shall be provided in easily understandable words and in a clear and comprehensible form, in an official language of the Member State where the payment service is offered or in any other language agreed by the parties. However, if the consumer so requests, the conditions shall be provided on paper.
Amendment 162 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B), POINT (II)
(ii) the execution time and the relevant maximum execution time for the payment services to be provided;	(ii) the relevant maximum execution time for the payment services effected by the payer;
Justification
It is not possible for a service provider to indicate with complete certainty the actual execution time for payments involving different institutions, since this can only be established definitively after the payment has been made. Instead of this, obligations in terms of information requirements should be limited to an indication of the statutory or contractual maximum execution periods as is already the case under EU Directive 97/5/EC on cross-border credit transfers and EU Regulation 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euro.
Amendment 163 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B), POINTS (III) and (IV)
(iii) an indication of the right of the payment service user to terminate an initial payment service agreement and any agreements relating to that right in accordance with Article 34;	(iii) an indication of the right of the payment service user to terminate a framework contract and any agreements relating to that right in accordance with Article 34;
(iv) where appropriate, a description of the steps that the payment service user is to take in order to keep safe a payment verification instrument, the risks involved if the steps are not taken and how to notify the payment service provider for the purposes of Article 46(b);	(iv) where applicable, a description of the steps that the payment service user is to take in order to keep safe a payment verification instrument, the risks involved if the steps are not taken and how to notify the payment service provider for the purposes of Article 46(b);
Amendment 164 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B), POINT (V A) (new)
	(va) the conditions and time limit applicable to any refund to which the payer has a right.
Justification
Similar to amendment 54 of De Vits Draft IMCO Report. The conditions should clarify the conditions and the period of time under which the payer has a right to refund.
Amendment 165 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B), POINT (V B) (new)
	(vb) the right of the payer to revoke a payment;
Justification
In order to protect the consumer and to avoid a race to the bottom, the list of these conditions is a non-exhaustive one: member states should have to go further. In this respect, the conditions should make clear how the payer can revoke a payment and how he has a right to refund.
Amendment 166 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) spending ceilings envisaged for specific payment services in accordance with Article 43(1);	(c) the possibility of spending ceilings envisaged for specific payment services in accordance with Article 43(1);
Justification
In the precontractual phase a decision regarding spending ceilings and hence a decision regarding credit cannot be taken in the abstract since it relates to an individual credit limit. For this reason information can only be given concerning the 'possibility of spending ceilings'.
Amendment 167 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)
(d) a definition of the point in time of acceptance of a payment order as defined in Article 54(1);	(d) a clear reference to the point in time of acceptance of a payment order as defined in Article 54(1) and to the conditions for refund in accordance with Articles 52 and 53;
Amendment 168 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (F)
(f) where applicable, the interest and exchange rates applied to payment transactions, including, if applicable, the reference interest or exchange rate, the relevant date for determining such a rate and the way to calculate the applied interest or exchange rate based on the reference rate;	(f) where applicable, the reference interest and exchange rates applied to payment transactions, including, if applicable, the method of calculation, and the relevant date for determining such reference interest or exchange rate;
Justification
Clarification. Corresponds with the reference interest rate and reference exchange rate given in the definitions.
Amendment 169 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (G)
(g) the law applicable to the contract and the competent court;	(g) an indication of the law applicable to the contract , which shall be the law of the country of the payment service user, where the provider carries on activities or directs its activities there, and the competent court;
Amendment 170 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (I)
(i) any information on how the payment service user can access the information specified in Article 32.	(i) any information on how the payment service user can access information on the conditions communicated in accordance with this Article and information specified in Article 32 (2).
Amendment 171 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (I A) (new)
	(ia) the procedure for transmitting consent in accordance with Articles 41 and 42;
Amendment 172 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (I B) (new)
	(ib) a reference to how the information under Articles 36 and 37 is to be made available.
Amendment 174 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
In cases where an aggregate fee is charged, such as a merchant service charge or account management fee, the information provided for the purposes of point (e) shall make transparent the prices of the different service elements covered by the aggregate fee.	In cases where an aggregate fee such as a merchant service charge or account management fee is charged, the information provided for the purposes of point (e) shall make transparent the fees and charges for the different service elements covered by the aggregate fee unless the fee is part of a fee bundle that allows a specified number of operations within a certain time frame and there is transparent reporting of the fee bundle.
Justification
Transparency of elements of fees is important, especially within the context of credit cards and merchant fees. However, the practice of many banks to allow a specified number of transactions per month or per year is also a convenient way of charging, providing it is transparently reported.
Amendment 173 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 2
2. The conditions shall be set out in easily understandable words and in a clear and readable form, in an official language of a Member State or in any other language agreed by the parties.	deleted
Amendment 175 ARTICLE 32, TITLE
Information to be provided after entry into force	Accessibility of information to be provided after entry into force
Justification
Included in Article 30(1).
Amendment 176 ARTICLE 32, PARAGRAPH 1
After the entry into force of a framework agreement, the payment service provider shall make available to a payment service user in an easily accessible manner all the conditions specified in Article 31(1).	After the entry into force of a framework contract, the payment service provider shall communicate to a payment service user on his first request and in an easily accessible manner all the conditions specified in Article 31(1). The user shall have the right to obtain, free of charge, at any point during the contractual relationship, a copy of the contractual conditions on paper or other durable medium.
Amendment 177 ARTICLE 32, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	In the event of litigation, the burden of proof shall lie with the payment services provider to demonstrate that he has complied with the information requirements set out in Title III.
Amendment 178 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Any change in the contractual conditions communicated to the payment service user pursuant to Article 31(1) shall be proposed by the payment service provider in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) and not less than one month before the date of its proposed application.	1. Any change in the contractual conditions communicated to the payment service user pursuant to Article 31(1) shall be proposed by the payment service provider in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) and not less than two months before the date of its proposed application. At the same time as communicating any change in accordance with the first subparagraph, the payment service provider shall specify that for a period of at least two months the payment service user has the right to terminate the contract without charge.
Justification
In the interests of consumer protection it is preferable to increase the time limit for terminating the contract to two months, and to specify explicitly the consumer’s right to terminate the contract if there is any change in the contractual conditions.
Amendment 179 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	At the time of the communication specified in the first subparagraph, the payment service provider shall specify that the payment service user has the right to terminate the contract without incurring any penalties during at least the first month of its validity.
Amendment 180 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply in the case of changes in the interest rates if the reference interest rate laid down for their calculation in the framework agreement has fluctuated and the payment service provider has duly informed the payment service user of his contractually agreed right to change the interest rates according to an agreed formula.	2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to changes in the reference interest or exchange rates calculated in accordance with Article 31(f) subject to the payment service provider duly having informed the payment service user of the contractually agreed right.
Amendment 181 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
In such cases, any change in the interest rates may be applied immediately, provided that the payment service user is informed of the change at the earliest opportunity in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).	In such cases, any change in the reference interest or exchange rates may be applied immediately, provided that the payment service user is informed of the change at the earliest opportunity in the same way as provided for in Article 30(1).
Amendment 182 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	Contractual changes in the reference interest or exchange rate used in payment transactions shall be implemented and calculated in a neutral manner that does not discriminate against payment service users.
Amendment 183 ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH -1 (new)
	-1. Framework contracts may be terminated at any time by the payment service user and with at least one month’s notice by the payment service provider. However, a payment service provider may agree with the payment service user an explicit period of notice for the termination of a framework contract by the latter, which shall not exceed one month.
Amendment 184 ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. The termination of a framework contract which has been concluded for a period of 12 months or more or for an indefinite period shall be free of charges for the payment service user.	1. The termination of a framework contract concluded for a period exceeding 12 months or for an indefinite period shall be free of charges for the payment service user after the expiry of 12 months. In all other cases, charges for the termination of contracts shall be reasonable and in line with costs.
Amendment 186 ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (NEW)
	Charges for the termination by the payment service user of a framework contract concluded for a period of less than 12 months shall be reasonable and in proportion with the costs. In no case may the contract exit charges be higher than the contract entry charges.
Justification
It is important to specify that the article on the termination of a contract concerns only the payment service user, not the payment service provider. Otherwise the user could be faced with serious problems; for example, in the case of utility bills paid by direct debit.
Amendment 185 ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
Fees for payment services charged on a regular basis shall be payable only proportionally up to the termination of the contract. If such fees are paid in advance, they shall be reimbursed proportionally.	Fees for payment services charged on a regular basis shall be payable only proportionally up to the termination of the contract by the payment service user. If such fees are paid in advance, they shall be reimbursed proportionally.

Amendment 187

ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH 2

2. Save where the payment service provider and the payment service user have explicitly agreed on a period of notice for the termination of a framework contract, framework contracts may be terminated immediately.	deleted
The period of notice may not exceed one month.

Justification

Included in Article 34(1).

Amendment 188 ARTICLE 35, PARAGRAPH 1
In the case of a payment transaction under a framework contract, a payment service provider shall, at the request of the payment service user for this specific transaction, provide explicit information on the execution time and the commissions, fees and charges payable to the payment service provider.	In the case of a payment transaction under a framework contract, a payment service provider shall, at the request of the payment service user for this specific transaction, provide explicit information on the execution time as defined in Title IV, Chapter 2, Section 2 and the commissions, fees and charges payable to the payment service provider.
Amendment 189 ARTICLE 35, PARAGRAPH 2
In cases covered by Article 58(2), a bona fide estimate of any deductions shall be provided in advance.	deleted
Justification
The deletion arises from the restriction in the scope of the provision.
Amendment 190 ARTICLE 36, TITLE
Information to be provided to the payer subsequent to the execution of an individual payment transaction	Information to be provided or communicated to the payer on his first request subsequent to the execution of an individual payment transaction
Amendment 191 ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. Subsequent to the execution of a payment transaction, the payment service provider shall provide the payer with at least the following information:	1. Subsequent to the execution of an individual payment transaction, the payer’s payment service provider shall provide or communicate to the payer on his first request at least the following information:
Amendment 192 ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A)
(a) a reference enabling the payment service user to identify each payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee;	(a) a reference enabling the payer to identify each payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee in so far as this information has not already been provided or offered;
Amendment 193 ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) the amount of any fees or charges for the payment transaction that the payer had to pay to his payment service provider. In cases where an aggregate fee such as a merchant service charge or account management fee is charged, the information shall make transparent the fees and charges for the different service elements covered by the aggregate fee;	(c) the amount of any charges for the payment transaction that the payer had to pay to his payment service provider. In cases where an aggregate fee such as a merchant service charge or account management fee is charged, the information shall make transparent the fees and charges for the different service elements covered by the aggregate fee unless the fee is part of a fee bundle that allows a specified number of operations in a time period and there is transparent reporting of the fee bundle;
Justification
Transparency of elements of fees is important, especially within the context of credit cards and merchant fees. However, the practice of many banks to allow a specified number of transactions per month or per year is also a convenient way of charging, providing it is transparently reported.
Amendment 194 ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)
(d) where relevant, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction if it is applied by the payer’s payment service provider.	(d) where applicable, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction if it is applied by the payer’s payment service provider.
Amendment 195 ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 2
2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be provided on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be supplied in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).	2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be provided or communicated on first request of the payer on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be supplied in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).
Amendment by Othmar Karas

Amendment 196

ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 2

2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be provided on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be supplied in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).	(Does not affect the English version.)

Or. de

Justification

The change concerns only the German version to bring it into line with the English text.

Amendment 197 ARTICLE 37, TITLE
Information to be provided to the payee after receipt of the funds	Information to be provided or communicated to the payee on his first request after receipt of the funds
Amendment 198 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. Subsequent to making the funds received for the payee available to the latter, the payment service provider shall provide the payee, in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2), with at least the following information:	1. Subsequent to making the funds received for the payee available to the latter, the payment service provider shall communicate to the payee, on his first request, in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2), the following information:
Amendment 199 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A)
(a) the reference of the payer;	(a) the reference of the payer and the information transferred by the payer with the payment transaction enabling the payee to identify the payment transaction;
Amendment 200 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B)
(b) appropriate information transferred by the payer with the payment and enabling the payee to identify the payment;	deleted
Amendment 201 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)
(d) the amount of any commission, fees and charges applied to the payment transaction payable by the payee to his payment service provider for receiving the payment;	(d) the amount of any commission, fees and charges for the payment transaction payable by the payee to his payment service provider or by any intermediary for receiving the payment;
Amendment 202 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (E)
(e) where relevant, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction if it was applied by the payee’s payment service provider.	(e) where applicable, the exchange rate used in the payment transaction if it was applied by the payee's payment service provider or by any intermediary.
Amendment 203 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
In cases where an aggregate fee such as a merchant service charge or account management fee is charged, the information provided for the purposes of point (d) shall make transparent the fees and charges for the different service elements covered by the aggregate fee.	deleted
Justification
Cited passage of 37th. Article goes about management of single transactions, therefore d point talks about single transaction fee. Payment service providers impose bundling fee based not on transaction-by transaction basis but on lump-sum basis on specified period of time. Therefore concerning part of this indent should be deleted.
Amendment 204 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 2
2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be provided on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be supplied in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).	2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be communicated either on the payment service user's first request or on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be provided in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).
Amendment 205 ARTICLE 38, PARAGRAPH 1
1. By way of derogation from Articles 29 to 33, in the case of a contract concerning payments where no individual payment can exceed EUR 50, the payment service provider shall communicate to the payment service user in the manner provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) only the main characteristics of the payment service to be provided, the way in which it can be used and all charges applicable.	1. By way of derogation from Articles 29 to 33, in the case of a micro payment as defined in Article 4, the payment service provider shall communicate to the payment service user in the manner provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) only the main characteristics of the payment service to be provided, including the way in which it can be used and all charges applicable.
Amendment 206 ARTICLE 38, PARAGRAPH 3 A (NEW)
	3a. The service provider shall not charge for providing information under this Article.
Amendment 207 ARTICLE 39, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Where a currency conversion service is offered prior to the initiation of the payment transaction and where that service is offered at the point of sale or by the payee, the party offering the service to the payer shall disclose to the payer all fees and charges as well as the reference exchange rate to be used for converting the transaction.	2. Where a currency conversion service is offered prior to the initiation of the payment transaction and where that currency conversion service is offered at the point of sale or by the payee, the party offering the currency conversion service to the payer shall disclose to the payer all charges as well as the reference exchange rate to be used for converting the transaction.
The payer shall explicitly agree to the service on that basis.	The payer shall explicitly agree to the currency conversion service on that basis.
Amendment 208 ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH -1 (new)
	-1. Neither payment service providers nor third parties may prohibit the payment service user from requesting a surcharge or offering a reduction in cases where use is made of a specified payment instrument.
Justification
This new first paragraph prohibits what is known as the Non-Discrimination Rule, which many payment service providers and banks include in their contracts with businesses. The Non-Discrimination Rule prohibits businesses from disclosing the costs of payment services to their customers and thus from allowing them to use the most efficient payment method. The competition authorities of some Member States have recently prohibited this requirement.
Amendment 209 ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Where, for the use of a given payment verification instrument, the payee requests a surcharge or offers a reduction, agreement shall be reached between the payee and the payer on those matters prior to the initiation of the payment transaction.	1. Where, for the use of a given payment verification instrument, the payment service user and/or payee requests a surcharge or offers a reduction, explicit agreement shall be reached between the payee and the payer on those matters prior to the initiation of the payment transaction.
Amendment 210 ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 1 A (NEW)
	1a. Payment service providers shall not impose charges on payment service users for the provision or making available of conditions or information requirements pursuant to Title III except as specifically permitted in this Article.
Amendment 211 ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Where, for the use of a given payment verification instrument, a payment service provider or a third party requests a surcharge, agreement shall be reached between the payment service user and the payment service provider on those matters prior to the initiation of the payment transaction.	deleted
Justification
The existing text of paragraph 2 gives the possibility to the issuing bank (service provider) to forbid the merchant (third party) to request a surcharge from the consumer (payment service user). We believe that it is vital that the merchant is allowed to surcharge because this would give him more bargaining power in his relationship with the payment service provider. It would also make the cost of the different paying instruments more transparent to the consumer. In the end, this would benefit all the payment services users as this transparency will lead to lower interchange fees and thus in lower prices for goods.
Amendment 212 ARTICLE 40, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. Where a payment service user has additional information requirements or requests more frequent communication of information than is normally foreseen in the contract with the payment service provider, the provider may impose charges for this service, which shall be reasonable and proportionate to the cost of the service.
Amendment 213 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall ensure that a payment transaction is considered to be authorised only if the payer has consented to the respective payment order addressed to the payment service provider.	Member States shall ensure that a payment transaction is considered to be authorised only, with the payer's consent.
Justification
Avec la venue des futurs instruments de paiement paneuropéens dans le cadre du projet interbancaire SEPA, et notamment du débit direct dans lequel le prestataire du payeur ne pourra pas vérifier la validité de l’ordre de paiement qu’il reçoit via le bénéficiaire, il apparaît important de poser des garanties particulières pour les consommateurs : à cet égard, il convient d’introduire les principes de révocation du mandat sans frais et de remboursement des transactions non autorisées sans frais. L’absence de frais liés au remboursement n’est, en effet, prévue que pour des transactions autorisées mais dont le montant n’était pas connu au moment de l’autorisation et s’avère exorbitant (cf. articles 52 et 53 de la proposition).
Amendment 214 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 2
Consent shall consist in an explicit authorisation for the payment service provider to effect a payment transaction or a series of transactions.	Consent shall consist in an authorisation, in a form agreed contractually between the payer and the payment service provider, to execute a payment transaction or a series of transactions.
Amendment 215 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 3
In the absence of such consent, a payment transaction shall be considered to be unauthorised.	deleted
Justification
Included in Article 41(4a) (new).
Amendment 216 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 4
A payment transaction may be authorised by the payer prior or subsequent to the execution of the payment transaction.	A payment transaction may be authorised by the payer prior or, if agreed between the parties, subsequent to the execution of the payment transaction.
Amendment 217 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 4 A (new)
	In the absence of such consent, a payment transaction shall be considered to be unauthorised.
Amendment 218 ARTICLE 42, TITLE
Transmission of consent	Principle of transmission of consent
Justification
This amendment should be seen in conjunction with the amendment for a proposed new Article 53 a ; you are referred to the relevant justification.
Amendment 219 ARTICLE 42, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. The payer may transmit his consent for the purposes of Article 41 using a payment verification instrument.	deleted
Amendment 220 ARTICLE 42, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
The consent may be communicated directly to his payment service provider or indirectly via the payee.	The consent may be communicated directly to the payment service provider of the payer or indirectly via the payee.
Amendment 221 ARTICLE 42, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 a (NEW)
	Payment services providers may rely on electronic details of the consent in assessing whether the transaction is authorized, subject to the payment service user’s rights under Article 48.

Amendment 222

ARTICLE 42, PARAGRAPH 2

2. The procedure for transmitting consent shall be agreed between both the payment service provider and the payer in the manner laid down in Article 31(1)(a).	2. The procedure for transmitting consent shall be agreed explicitly between both the payment service provider and the payer and may consist in using a payment verification instrument.

Amendment 223 ARTICLE 43, PARAGRAPH 2
2. If agreed in the framework contract, the payment service provider may reserve the right to block the use of a payment verification instrument even within the agreed spending ceiling provided that, in its view, the spending pattern gives rise to the suspicion of fraudulent use.	2. If agreed in the framework contract, the payment service provider may reserve the right to block the use of a payment verification instrument even within the agreed spending ceiling provided that, in its view, there is a substantial suspicion that the payment verification instrument has been or could be used fraudulently or for criminal purposes.
However, the payments service provider may block the payment verification instrument only if he has previously made bona fide efforts to contact the holder of the payment verification instrument in order to verify whether fraud has been taking place.	Where the use of the payment verification instrument is blocked, the payment service provider shall inform the payment service user thereof without undue delay.
Justification
It is more efficient and less time consuming to first block the account and then inform the payment service user in case of suspicion of fraudulent use.
Amendment 224 ARTICLE 43, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 2a (new)
	The payment service provider must, however, unblock the payment verification instrument immediately upon the request of the payment service user free of charge. The payment service provider must ensure that the payment service user may make such a request at any time by a telephone call, free of charge. No charge shall be payable by the payment service user for the previous blocking of the payment verification instrument when the payment user requests unblocking the payment verification instrument.
Justification
When a credit card is being used fraudulently it is important to block it immediately and it is not always possible to prioritise the contact first as minutes often count, both for preventing transactions and detection of the culprit.
Amendment 225 ARTICLE 44
The payment service provider shall keep for at least one year internal records in order for payment transactions to be traced and errors to be rectified, without prejudice to Directive 2005/…/EC or other relevant Community legislation.	The payment service provider shall keep for two years internal records in order for payment transactions to be traced and errors to be rectified, without prejudice to Directive 2005/60/EC or other relevant Community or national legislation.
Amendment 226 ARTICLE 45, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 A (NEW)
	Any claim against the payment service provider shall be submitted no later than six months after the date of debit. After six months from the date of debit, the payment shall be considered to be authorised.
Amendment 227 ARTICLE 45, PARAGRAPH 2
2. In the case of a series of transactions, authorisation may be withdrawn and any subsequent payment transaction shall be considered as unauthorised without prejudice to Article 56.	2. If authorisation is granted for a series of transactions, it may be withdrawn for the future with the effect that any subsequent payment transaction shall be considered as unauthorised without prejudice to Article 56.
Justification
To clarify the wording.
Amendment 228 ARTICLE 46, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
The payment service user shall meet the following obligations:	The payment service user holding the payment verification instrument shall meet the following obligations:
Amendment 229 ARTICLE 46, PARAGRAPH 1, pointS (-a) and (-AA) (new)
	(-a) immediately to take all reasonable precautions, after receiving a payment verification instrument, to protect its security features from unauthorised use;
	(-aa) in particular to ensure that the payment verification instrument and the personalised security features associated with it are not accessible to any other person;
Justification
To clarify the point that the payment service user must within his sphere of influence take measures that are appropriate to stop the fraudulent use of payment verification instruments and their personalised security features. This is also to protect payment systems as a whole by cutting the cost of risk cover.
Amendment 230 ARTICLE 46, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B)
(b) to notify the payment service provider, or the entity specified by the latter, without undue delay on becoming aware of loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment verification instrument or of its unauthorised use.	(b) to notify, including by telephone, the payment service provider, or the entity specified by the latter, without undue delay on becoming aware of loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment verification instrument or of its unauthorised use.
Amendment 231 ARTICLE 46, PARAGRAPH 2
For the purposes of point (a), the payment service user shall, in particular, as soon as the payment service user receives a payment verification instrument, take all reasonable steps to keep its security features safe.	For the purposes of point (a), the payment service user shall, in particular, as soon as the payment service user receives a payment verification instrument, take all reasonable steps to keep its personalised security features safe.
Amendment 232 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
The payment service provider shall meet the following obligations:	The payment service provider issuing the payment verification instrument shall meet the following obligations:
Amendment 233 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A)
(a) to make sure that the personalised security features of a payment verification instrument are not accessible to parties other than the holder of the payment verification instrument;	(a) to make sure that the personalised security features of a payment verification instrument are not accessible to parties other than the holder of the payment verification instrument without prejudice to the safekeeping requirements of payment verification instruments for the payment service user;
Amendment 234 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B)
(b) to refrain from sending an unsolicited payment verification instrument, except where a payment verification instrument already held by the payment service user is to be replaced because it has expired or because of the need to add or change security features ;	(b) to refrain from sending an unsolicited payment verification instrument, except where a payment verification instrument already held by the payment service user is to be replaced because it has expired or will expire in the near future, or because of the need to add or change security features ;
Amendment 235 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C A) (new)
	(ca) to prevent all use of the payment verification instrument, once the notification in Article 46(b) has been fulfilled.
Amendment 236 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 2 a (NEW)
	The payment service provider must bear the risk of sending any electronic funds transfer instrument to the holder, or of sending any means that allows its use, such as the pin number.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons, it is up to the provider to bear the risk of sending any electronic funds transfer instrument to the holder, or of sending any means allowing its use (pin number for example).
Amendment 237 ARTICLE 48
1. Member States shall require that, where a payment service user denies having authorised a completed payment transaction, the payment service provider is to provide at least evidence that the payment transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded, entered in the accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency.	1. Member States shall require that, where a payment service user denies having authorised a completed payment transaction, the payment service provider is to provide evidence of authorisation. This shall require at least proving that the authentication procedure provided for this payment transaction was complied with, the transaction itself was accurately recorded and entered in the accounts and the transaction’s records do not indicate a technical failure during the transaction. In order to protect consumer rights, further details and legislative consequences regarding the burden of proof should be governed by the national civil laws.
	1a. Any claim against the payment service provider shall be submitted no later than twelve months after the date of debit. After twelve months from the date of the debit the payment shall be considered to be authorised.
2. If, on production of the evidence required under paragraph 1, the payment service user continues to deny having authorised the payment transaction, he shall provide factual information or elements to allow the presumption that he could not have authorised the payment transaction and that he did not act fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to the obligations incumbent upon him under Article 46(b).
3. For the purposes of rebutting the presumption referred to in paragraph 2, the use of a payment verification instrument recorded by the payment service provider shall not, of itself, be sufficient to establish either that the payment was authorised by the payment service user or that the payment service user acted fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to his obligations under Article 46.
4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall be without prejudice to the legal provisions concerning the evidential status of handwritten signatures or advanced electronic signatures as defined in Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council[2].
Amendment 239 ARTICLE 49, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall ensure that, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider refunds to the payment service user forthwith the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction or, where applicable, restores the payment account that had been debited with that amount to the situation that would have existed if the unauthorised payment transaction had not taken place.	Where a claim is made within one year from the date of debit of the transaction, Member States shall ensure that, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider refunds to the payment service user forthwith, without charge, the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction or, where applicable, restores the payment account that had been debited with that amount to the situation that would have existed if the unauthorised payment transaction had not taken place.
Justification
In order to create EU wide legal certainty, especially for the European direct debit scheme, Article 49 should be based on existing practice in a number of EU Member States and place a limit of one year on the payment service user's right to refund in the event unauthorised payments. Pursuant to Article 45, the user quite rightly is under an obligation to monitor payment transactions on his bank account at regular intervals and immediately file an objection against unauthorised payment transactions. Hence, limitation of the user’s right to refund in the event of unauthorised payments to one year is a balanced and consistent approach. This provides the service provider and user with the legal certainty that after expiry of this deadline the payment transaction will be final. Furthermore, this one year period of limitations would correspond to the record keeping obligation under Article 44.
Amendment 240 ARTICLE 50, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. The payment service user shall bear the loss, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment verification instrument and occurring before he has fulfilled his obligation to notify his payment service provider under Article 46(b).	1. Before fulfilment of the obligation to notify the payment service provider under Article 46(b), the payment service user shall bear the full amount of losses to which he has culpably given rise, and no more than a maximum of EUR 150 in the case of losses to which he has not culpably given rise.
Justification
The €150 limit on liability in favour of the user for losses resulting from a lost or stolen payment instrument has no reasonable justification except in the case of gross negligence or fraudulent intent.
Reference should be made here to Parliament’s report of 18 April 2004 (A5-0192/2004 final, paragraph 17). This rejects provisions limiting the customer’s liability in the case of unauthorised transactions (such as credit card theft) to €150 even if he has not fulfilled his obligations to notify his payment service provider.
Amendment 241 ARTICLE 50, PARAGRAPH 1, subparagraph 2
Member States may reduce that maximum amount further provided that such reduction does not apply to payment service providers authorised in other Member States.	Member States may reduce that maximum amount further.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons, it’s more appropriate to delete the restriction in art. 50 para 1 and to clarify the first phrase.
Amendment 242 ARTICLE 50, PARAGRAPH 2
2. The payment service user shall bear all the losses on unauthorised transactions if he incurred them by acting fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to his obligations under Article 46. In such cases, the maximum amount referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply.	2. After he has fulfilled his obligation under Article 46(b) to notify his payment service provider, the payment service user shall bear only the losses to which he has intentionally and culpably given rise.
Justification
The €150 limit on liability in favour of the user for losses resulting from a lost or stolen payment instrument has no reasonable justification except in the case of gross negligence or fraudulent intent.
Reference should be made here to Parliament’s report of 18 April 2004 (A5-0192/2004 final, paragraph 17). This rejects provisions limiting the customer’s liability in the case of unauthorised transactions (such as credit card theft) to €150 even if he has not fulfilled his obligations to notify his payment service provider.
Amendment 243 ARTICLE 50, paragraph 3
3. The payer shall not bear any financial consequences resulting from use of the lost, stolen or misappropriated payment verification instrument after the payment service provider has been notified of the loss or theft of that payment verification instrument, except where he has acted fraudulently.	3. The payment service user shall not bear any financial consequences resulting from use of the lost or stolen payment verification instrument after the payment service provider has been notified of the loss or theft of that payment verification instrument, except where he has acted fraudulently.
	The payment service user shall not bear any financial consequences resulting from the misuse of data from a misappropriated payment verification instrument, except where he has acted fraudulently.
	National rules limiting the user’s liability in such cases shall, however, continue to apply.
Justification
To protect consumers it should be specified that they will not bear any financial consequences resulting from the misuse of data from a misappropriated payment verification instrument.
Amendment 244 ARTICLE 51, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Articles 49 and 50 of this Directive shall not apply where a payment service user is an enterprise exceeding the size of a micro enterprise within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2(1) and (3) of Title I of the Annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC.	deleted
Justification
Consequential change as a result of amendments to Article 2.
Amendment 246 ARTICLE 52, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall ensure that a payer acting in good faith is entitled to a refund of an authorised payment transaction which has already been executed, if the following conditions are met:	Member States shall ensure that a payer acting in good faith is entitled to a refund of the disputed amount of an authorised payment transaction which has already been executed, if the following conditions are met:
(a) the authorisation did not specify the exact amount of the payment transaction or the identification of the payee when it was made;	(a) the authorisation did not specify the exact amount of the payment transaction or the identification of the payee when it was made; and
(b) the amount of the transaction executed is not the amount that a reasonable payer would expect if he were in that payer’s position.	(b) the amount of the transaction executed is not a reasonable amount that a payer would expect in a similar situation.
Amendment 247 ARTICLE 53, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the payer shall request the refund, at the latest within four weeks of being informed of the payment transaction in question by the payment service provider. The request shall include factual elements relating to the conditions laid down in Article 52.	1. Member States shall ensure that the payer shall request the refund, at the latest within six weeks from the date on which the funds are debited. The request shall include factual elements relating to the conditions laid down in Article 52.
Amendment 248 ARTICLE 53, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
2. Within ten business days of receiving a request for a refund, the payment service provider shall either refund the full amount of the payment transaction or provide justification for refusing the refund, indicating the body to which the payer may refer the matter in accordance with Articles 72 to 75 if he does not accept the justification provided.	2. Within ten business days of receiving a request for a refund, the payment service provider shall either refund the disputed amount of the payment transaction or provide justification for refusing the refund, indicating the body to which the payer may refer the matter in accordance with Articles 72 to 75 if he does not accept the justification provided
Amendment 249 ARTICLE 53 A (new)
	Article 53a
	Exemption from the principle of transmission of consent
	1. The payer may authorise the payee, for the purpose of making a series of regular payments or a single payment, to deduct a sum from a designated account with his payment service provider by direct debit, releasing the payee from the obligation to transmit consent beforehand to his payment service provider. This shall not affect any other requirements to transmit information to the payer, particularly as regards the reasons for, type, amount and purpose of the payment.
	2. This exemption can only be granted if the payee:
	– accords the payer the right to recall the payment, even without providing reasons, by a simple declaration to his own payment service provider within at least six weeks of receiving notification of the payment transaction,
	– ensures, directly or through his payment service provider, that the sum originally debited is immediately credited in full to the payer’s account, without the need for any further action by the latter,
	– indemnifies the payer against any costs in connection with recalling the payment, unless that action disregards the obligations imposed on the payer by the underlying legal relationship and, consequently, the payee can assert his right in turn to the reimbursement of costs.
Justification
The amendment seeks to ensure the directive covers the direct debit procedure which is practised to a great extent in a few Member States (for example in Germany, where there are around six billion such transactions a year, mainly for the payment of small and very small sums at regular intervals). This procedure is regarded by payment service providers and users alike as very efficient, reliable and inexpensive and, from the user’s point of view, offers a very low risk of the system being abused, with any resulting losses being met by the payment service provider.
The proposed provisions should ensure that this form of payment instrument can continue to be used in various Member States to ensure users are not faced with the prospect of being obliged to use more complicated and costly procedures.
Amendment 250 ARTICLE 54
1. Member States shall ensure that, in the case of a payment order initiated by a payer, or by or through a payee, and covered by the authorisation of a payer, the point in time of acceptance occurs when the following three conditions are met: (i) the payment service provider has received the payment order; (ii)      the payment service provider has completed authentication of the order, including a possible check on the availability of funds; (iii)     the payment service provider has explicitly or implicitly accepted the obligation to execute the payment transaction ordered. The point in time of acceptance shall not be later than the point in time when the payment service provider starts to execute the payment transaction.	1. Member States shall ensure that a payment order covered by the authorisation of a payer, regardless of whether it is transmitted directly by the payer or indirectly by or through a payee on the payer's behalf, is processed in the following manner by the payer's payment service provider.   Notwithstanding any involvement by the payer's payment service provider in the process leading up to the creation and submission of the payment order, the business day on which the complete and valid payment order is received by the payer's payment service provider shall be the day of receipt.   If the payment order is received prior to a cut-off time set by the payment service provider, which shall be no earlier than 17:00, or where the payment service user delivers instructions in person to an office of the payment service provider, one hour before the close of business of that office, whichever is the earlier, the day of receipt shall also be the day of acceptance unless the payer's payment service provider has refused the execution of the payment order as provided in Article 55.   If the payment order is not received prior to the cut-off time set by the payment service provider, the day of acceptance shall be the business day after the day of receipt unless the payer's payment service provider has refused the execution of the payment order as provided in Article 55 on that day.   The day of execution of the payment order shall be the same day as the day of acceptance except where a later execution day is requested by the payment service user the day of execution shall be that business day stipulated by the payment service user.   All references to days and times in this Article shall refer to the day and time in the location of the payer's payment services provider.
2. In the case of electronically initiated payment transactions, the payment service provider shall inform the payment service user of acceptance of the order for execution. He shall do so without undue delay and, in any case, before the end of the next working day after the point in time of acceptance under paragraph 1.
Amendment 251 ARTICLE 55
1. Where the payment order is refused, the reasons for the refusal and, if possible, the procedure for correcting any factual mistakes that led to the refusal shall be notified to the payment service user by means of a communication agreed for that purpose by the parties. Notification shall be made without undue delay and, in any case, within three working days of the point in time of acceptance under Article 54(1).
2. In cases where all the conditions set out in the payment service contract in accordance with Article 31 are met, the payer’s payment service provider shall not refuse to execute a payment order which has been initiated through a payment service provider other than the holder of the payer's payment account and which is covered by the authorisation given by the payer.	The payer’s payment service provider may refuse to execute a payment order which is covered by the authorisation given by the payer, only if:   (a) the payment is not sufficiently covered by funds;   (b) the payer has not provided its payment service provider with the necessary information for the execution of the payment as agreed in the payment service contract in accordance with Article 31(1) (b)(i); or   (c) the execution of the payment is prohibited by Community or national legislation.   Where the payer's payment service provider refuses to execute a payment order, the payer shall be sent notification to this effect by its payment service provider without undue delay, and in any event no later than the end of what would have been the day of acceptance if not prohibited by other relevant Community or national legislation. The notification shall state the reason for the refusal and, where relevant, shall identify any factual mistakes which led to the refusal.
Amendment 252 ARTICLE 56
1. Without prejudice to Article 46, Member States shall ensure that the payment service user may not revoke a payment order after the time of its acceptance by the payer's payment service provider for payments initiated by the payer or by the payee's payment service provider for payments initiated by or through the payee.	Member States shall ensure that a payment service user shall not be entitled to revoke a payment order once it has been received or considered as valid by the payer's payment service provider. This shall not prevent a payment service provider from agreeing an earlier point of irrevocability with his client.
2. In the case of a payment order to be executed on a specific date in the future, the payment service provider and the payment service user may agree on a date of irrevocability that falls within the three working days preceding the point in time of acceptance for the order.
Amendment 253 ARTICLE 57
Where a payment transaction is carried out solely in the currency of a Member State and does not involve any currency exchanges and where the payment service providers of both the payer and the payee are located in the Community, Member States shall require that any fees be levied directly on the payer and the payee by their respective payment service providers, and that they each bear their own fees.	Where a payment transaction does not involve any currency exchanges, unless there is an agreement to the contrary between the payer or the payee and their respective payment service provider, Member States shall require that any fees be levied directly on the payer and the payee by their respective payment service providers, and that they each bear their own fees.
In the case of other payment transactions, the payer and the payee may, by mutual agreement, vary those requirements.
Amendment 254 ARTICLE 58
1. Where the payment service providers both of the payer and of the payee are located in the Community and where the payment transaction is carried out solely in the currency of a Member State, Member States shall require the payer's payment service provider to ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is received by the payee. Intermediaries shall not deduct fees from the amount transferred. However, explicit agreements may be arranged between the payee and his payment service provider under which the latter may deduct his own fees from the amount transferred before crediting it to the payee.	Member States shall require the payer's payment service provider to ensure that the full amount of the payment transaction is received by the payment service provider of the payee. No payment service provider, including intermediaries shall deduct fees from the amount transferred. Any fees shall be billed separately. However, explicit agreements deviating from this may be arranged between the payer or the payee and their payment service providers under which fees from the amount transferred may be deducted.
2. Member States shall, in either of the following situations, require the payment service provider to give a bona fide estimate of any deductions to be envisaged for the payment transaction: (a) where the payment service providers of both the payer and the payee are located in the Community, but the payment transaction is denominated, in whole or in part, in a currency other than that of a Member State; (b) where the payment service provider of either the payer or the payee is not located in the Community.
Amendment 255 ARTICLE 59, TITLE AND PARAGRAPH 1
Scope
This Section shall apply only if the payment service providers of both the payer and the payee are located in the Community.	deleted
Amendment 256 ARTICLE 59, PARAGRAPH 2
It shall not apply to payment transactions which are considered to be micro payments.	This section shall not apply to payment transactions which are considered to be micro payments.
Amendment 257 ARTICLE 60
1. Member States shall require the payer’s payment service provider to ensure that, after the point in time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the point in time of acceptance. However, up to 1 January 2010, a payer and his payment service provider may agree on a period no longer than three days.	Member States shall require the payer’s payment service provider to ensure that the amount ordered is credited to the payment account of the payee's payment service provider at the latest at the end of the second business day following the day of execution as defined in Article 54. However, up to 1 January 2010, a payer and his payment service provider may agree on a period no longer than three days.
2. Where the transaction is initiated by the payer and includes a currency conversion, the payer and his payment service provider may provide otherwise by explicit agreement.
Amendment 258 ARTICLE 61
Article 61 Payment transactions initiated by or through the payee	deleted
1. For a payment transaction initiated by or through the payee, Member States shall require the payment service provider to ensure that, after the point of time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the day on which the point in time of acceptance falls, unless otherwise explicitly agreed between the payee and his payment service provider. 2. If the payer’s payment service provider refuses to release the funds which are the subject of the payment transaction, the payment service provider shall, within the period specified in paragraph 1, inform the payee accordingly by means of a communication agreed for that purpose by the parties. The payment service provider shall be deemed to have fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 1 of this Article and under Article 58.
Amendment 259 ARTICLE 65
Availability of funds on a payment account 1. Member States shall ensure that the payment service provider of the payee makes funds available to the payee as soon as those funds are credited to the payee’s payment account. No fees may be levied for making the funds available.	Value date and availability of the amount of the payment transaction 1. Member States shall ensure that the debit value date for the payer’s payment account shall be not earlier than the point in time at which the amount of the payment transaction is debited to that account.
2. The payment service provider of the payer shall cease to make funds available to the payer as soon as those funds are debited from the payer’s payment account.	2. Member States shall ensure that the credit value date for the payee’s payment account shall be no later than the point in time at which the amount of the payment transaction is credited to the payee's payment service provider's account.
	2a. The amount of the payment transaction shall be made available to the payee on the same day on which the amount of the payment transaction was credited to the payee's payment service provider's account.
3. The credit value date for the payee’s payment account shall be the point in time at which that account is credited. The debit value date for the payer’s payment account shall be the point in time at which that account is debited.
4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be without prejudice to debits effected on savings accounts covered by explicit agreements regarding the use of funds in savings arrangements.
Amendment 260 ARTICLE 66, PARAGRAPH 1
1. If a payment order is executed in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the user, the payment order shall be deemed to be executed correctly with regard to the payee specified. Where the IBAN was specified as the unique identifier it should take precedence over the name of the payee, if it is provided additionally. However, the payment service provider should, where possible, verify the consistency of the former with the latter.	1. If a payment order is executed in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the payment service user, the payment order shall be deemed to be executed correctly with regard to the payee specified. The payment service user and the payment service provider may agree on a unique identifier that shall include a check code or other internal verification and shall take precedence over any other information provided. Where appropriate, the international bank account number (IBAN) should be used.
Amendment 261 ARTICLE 66, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (NEW)
	In such a case a fee may be charged.
Amendment 262 ARTICLE 67, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. After the point in time of acceptance in accordance with Article 54(1), a payment service provider shall be strictly liable for the non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction made in accordance with Section 1.	1. Without prejudice to Articles 66(2) and 70, after the day of acceptance in accordance with Article 54(1), a payment service provider shall be liable for the non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction made in accordance with Section 1.
Justification
Consequential change to modification of Article 54.
Amendment 264 Article 67, PARAGRAPH 1, subPARAGRAPH 2
In addition, the payment service provider shall be strictly liable for any charges, and for any interest charged to the payment service user as a consequence of the non-execution or defective execution of the payment transaction.	In addition, the payment service providers shall be liable for any charges for which they are responsible, including any interest charged to the payee by the payee’s payment service provider as a consequence of the non execution or defective execution of the payment transaction.
Justification
This clarifies that providers are only liable for cost relating to failings that are their fault. It also clarifies the interest liability.
Amendment 266 Article 67, PARAGRAPH 2
2. If the payment service user claims that a payment order has not been accurately executed, the payment service provider shall show, without prejudice to factual elements produced by the payment service user, that the payment order was accurately recorded, executed and entered in the accounts.	2. If the payment service user claims that a payment order has not been accurately executed, the payment service provider shall show, without prejudice to factual elements produced by the payment service user, that the payment order was accurately recorded, executed and entered in the accounts. In the event of the correct execution of a payment order, the relevant costs shall be borne by the payment service user.
Justification
The obligation for the service provider to provide proof provided for in paragraph 2, should be endorsed providing that the costs in the event of the correct execution are borne by the service user.
Amendment 267 ARTICLE 68
Article 68 Transfers to third countries In cases where the payment service provider of the payee is not located in a Member State, the payment service provider of the payer shall be liable for the execution of the payment transactions only until the funds reach the payee’s payment service provider.	deleted
Amendment 268 Article 72, paragraph 2 a (new)
	2a. Member States shall ensure that complaints are appropriately answered within 30 days of receipt.
Justification
This modification would force Member States to tackle complaints related for payment service within a uniform time period of 30 days.
Amendment 269 Article 75 a (NEW)
	Article 75a 1. Member States shall repeal,with effect from 1 January 2008 at the latest, any national reporting obligations for payments for balance-of-payment statistics. 2. Member States shall repeal, with effect from 1 January 2008 at the latest, any national obligations as to the minimum information to be provided concerning the payment service users which prevent the automation of payment execution.

Justification

Any reporting obligation linked to payments add to the processing costs of these payments. In order to achieve an efficient payments processing the reporting obligation should be disconnected and made otherwise, e.g. by surveying techniques.

Amendment 271 Article 76
Article 76 Amendments and updating In order to take account of technological and market developments in payment services and to ensure the uniform application of this Directive, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 77(2), amend the list of activities in the Annex to this Directive, in accordance with Articles 2 to 4.	deleted
It may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 77(2), update the amounts specified in Articles 2(1), 21(1)(a), 38 and 50(1) in order to take account of inflation and significant market developments.
Justification
The comitology procedure is in general and in financial services in particular a valuable way to achieve quickly modifications of directives on purely technical issues and implementing measures. This procedure is backed by the European Parliament but will be suspended in many cases on 1 April 2008 at the latest if no new interinstitutional agreement giving a full call-back right to the European Parliament is found until then. Concerning the directive on payments the issues addressed in the Annex are not of purely technical nature but concern the scope of the Directive and are connected several Articles as Art. 10 and Art. 2 paragraph 1. Such substantive changes of the Directive should be made in a real legislative procedure, including the European Parliament and thus the elected representatives of the European citizens.
Amendment 272 ARTICLE 78, TITLE
Full harmonisation, mutual recognition and mandatory nature of the Directive	Full harmonisation and mutual recognition
Justification
The legal effect of the Directive is obvious on the basis of the Treaties and ECJ jurisprudence.
Amendment 273 Article 78, PARAGRAPH 3, subPARAGRAPH 1
3. The Member States shall ensure that payment service providers do not derogate, to the detriment of payment service users, from the provisions of national law implementing or corresponding to provisions of this Directive except where explicitly provided for therein.	3. The Member States shall ensure that payment service providers do not derogate, to the detriment of payment service users, from the provisions of national law implementing or corresponding to provisions of this Directive except where explicitly provided for therein and ensure a level playing field between credit and non-credit institutions.
Amendment 274 Article 78 a (new)
	Article 78a Having regard to those UN Resolutions and EC Regulations the purpose of which is to freeze assets belonging to listed persons, such as UN Resolution 1373/2001 and Council Regulations (EC) No 2580/2001, and (EC) No 881/2002, Member States shall take measures to ensure that, with effect from 1 January 2008 at the latest, payment service providers are not obligated to observe these instruments , including any regulations supporting or amending their provisions, with regard to payments between payment service providers in Member States.
Justification
To reap real benefits from SEPA and to make them available - by lower cost burdens- to the citizens, Member States should lift any inappropriate restrictions and obligations on embargo filtering. The UN Resolutions and EC Regulations should not be applied to payments between payment service providers in Member States, as they are all obliged to freeze the assets of the persons listed. It is thus consistent with these provisions to apply them only to payments coming from or going to payment service providers outside the SEPA area. Additional filtering of intra-SEPA payments would be an unnecessary duplication.
Amendment 275 Article 78 b (new)
	Article 78b 1. Member States shall repeal, with effect from 1 January 2008 at the latest, any national reporting obligations for intra-EU, or, in any event, intra-euro zone cross-border payments for balance-of-payment statistics.
	2. Member States shall repeal, with effect from 1 January 2008 at the latest, any national obligations on intra-EU, or in any event, intra-euro zone distinction between resident and non-resident payments.
Justification
The cost saving potential of a single payment area as stated by the EU Commission could not be fully exploited if the diverging reporting obligations for balance-of-payment statistics are maintained. These requirements are regulated differently in many Member States and would burden SEPA-participants to different degrees. They represent in particular a burden for enterprises as they shall be provided in addition to the actual payment transaction. It is essential that the legislator abolishes – or at least harmonises – the reporting requirements within the EU.
Amendment 276 Article 79, PARAGRAPH 1 a (new)
	The Commission shall publish an annual report comparing payment service costs to end users in Member States and providing details on best practices of cost reduction, following the date of adoption of this Directive.
Amendment 277 ANNEX, POINT 1
(1) Cash deposits on a payment account held either by the user’s payment service provider or by another payment service provider as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account.	(1) Cash placed on a payment account as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account.
Amendment 278 ANNEX, POINT 2
(2) Cash withdrawals from a payment account held either by the user’s payment service provider or by another payment service provider, as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account.	(2) Cash withdrawals from a payment as well as all the operations required for operating a payment account.
Amendment 279 ANNEX, POINT 3, INTRODUCTORY PART
(3) Execution of payment transactions, including transfer of funds, where the funds are held on deposit in a payment account with the user’s payment service provider or with another payment service provider:	(3) Execution of payment transactions, including transfer of funds on a payment account with the user’s payment service provider or with another payment service provider:
Amendment 280 ANNEX, point (5)
(5) Issuing of payment cards which allow the payment service user to transfer funds.	(5) Issuing of payment cards which allow the payment service user to transfer credited funds (debit cards) or funds covered by credit line (credit cards).
Justification
The issuing of credit cards is currently not regulated in all EU-countries. Consequently it should be clarified that payment institutions according to point 5 of the Annex are entitled to issue payment cards as debit cards or credit cards.
Amendment 281 ANNEX, POINT (6)
(6) Execution of payment transactions, including transfer of funds, where the electronic money within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC is issued by the payment service provider.	(6) Execution of payment transactions, where the funds are electronic money within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC.
Justification
Amendment 282 ANNEX, POINT (7)
(7) Money remittance services where the cash, scriptural money or electronic money is accepted by the payment service provider from the payment service user for the sole purpose of making a payment transaction and transferring the funds to the payee.	(7) Money remittance services where the funds are accepted by the payment service provider from the payment service user for the sole purpose of delivering the funds to the payee.
Amendment 283 ANNEX, point (8)
(8) Execution of payment transactions by any means of communication at a distance such as mobile telephones or other digital or IT devices where the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network is facilitating the payment of goods or services that are not digital goods or electronic communication services and so are not provided through the device itself.	(8) Execution of payment transactions by any means of communication at a distance such as mobile telephones or other digital or IT devices by the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network acting on behalf of the payment service user, except where the digital goods or electronic communication services are provided essentially using the device itself and the payment is made directly to the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network, not to a third party.
Amendment 284 ANNEX, point (9)
(9) Execution of payment transactions by any means of communication at a distance such as mobile telephones or other digital or IT devices where the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network simply arranges a transfer of funds for the payment of digital goods or electronic communication services provided through the device, without any other intervention in the service provided.	deleted
Amendment 285 ANNEX 1 A (NEW)
You are paying (the amount of the payment in the currency of the Member State in which the transaction originates)	CURRENCY SYMBOL XXX
in (the currency of the payment)	CURRENCY
at an exchange rate of	X.XX
The fee for this transaction will be (in the currency of the Member State in which the transaction originates)	X
The total cost of making this payment (in the currency of the Member State in which the transaction originates) is	XXX
The payment will arrive with the person you are sending it to on	Day of the week, date, month year

• [1]  Not yet published in the OJ.
• [2]               Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (OJ L 13, 19.1.2000, p. 12).

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

At present the state of payment systems varies greatly from one country to the next, as regards the players, the rules, regulation, efficiency and cost.

Payment systems, indeed, are essentially national and the market remains domestic. Cross‑border payments account on average for less than 4%, a share which will probably increase only slowly.

The Commission has proposed a directive which would create a genuine single market in payments.

Even if some of the Commission’s predictions appear optimistic, there is no doubt that the creation of such a market, by harmonising national laws, would remove certain obstacles and have positive effects on growth.

Your rapporteur approves the Commission’s initiative in principle and supports the introduction of a full legal framework for payment services within the European Union.

He takes the view that this proposal for a directive comes at an opportune moment in terms of aiding the success of the banking sector’s initiative of establishing a Single Euro Payment Area ( SEPA) with the objective of consolidating national infrastructures and products in the euro zone.

The Commission’s initiative rightly concentrates on the electronic payment methods which are destined to replace expensive cash methods.

Establishing harmonised regulation of products and consolidating payment services should allow infrastructures to be rationalised, offering consumers and users a wider choice and a higher level of protection.

This legal framework would lower costs through price transparency and the development of healthy competition.

Progress to date in harmonising the legal framework for payments remains limited and is worth pursuing.

The proposal for a directive submitted to Parliament has been in preparation by the Commission for a long time, beginning in 2000, with interested parties and experts being consulted and an impact analysis carried out.

The declared objectives are to enhance competition between national markets and ensure a level playing field, to increase market transparency for both providers and users, and to clarify the rights and obligations of users and providers.

After defining the scope of the directive (Title I), therefore, the initial proposal goes on to define the categories of players authorised to provide payment services to the public, creating alongside the credit institutions a new category of service provider – the payments institution (Title II) –, setting out the transparency and information requirements (Title III) and stating the rights and obligations of users and providers of payment services (Title IV).

The proposal for a directive is based on Article 47, paragraph 2, and Article 95, paragraph 1, of the EC Treaty.

Your rapporteur suggests making certain changes to the initial proposal in order to make it more effective and to take account of the industry’s technical constraints while maintaining the objective of reducing costs for the user by developing fair competition.

I – Subject matter, scope and definitions

The scope of the directive must be limited to payments made in euro or the national currencies of the Member States by providers of payment services located in the Community, whether they are the payment service providers of the payer or the payee.

This field of application would be consistent with the objective of doing away with borders in the single market. It would enable acceptable requirements to be formulated for payment service providers, given that the various players would all be governed by the same Community legal framework.

The Commission’s desire to enact rules applicable to payment services involving the currencies of all the countries of the world is currently unrealistic and, to say the least, very premature. The very marginal proportion of cross-border payments outside the Community in the categories of users targeted by the directive does not justify such a broad field of application for the rules as that defined in the initial proposal for a directive.

The principles contained in the directive could nevertheless constitute rules of good practice for payments outside the Community, which payment service providers could well take as a basis or follow voluntarily.

II – Payment service providers

The introduction into the payment services market of a new category of player – the payment institution – must be accompanied by more precise provisions in order to guarantee safety and protection for consumers and to avoid creating distortions of competition with the credit institutions.

The activities of payment services are commercial activities which must, as such, be exercised in accordance with the rules of competition and the rules protecting consumers and users.

This consideration leads us to propose a number of amendments relating to the status of payment institutions and the controls exercised over them, inter alia in order to secure consumer and user confidence.

Of course, the rules applicable to these new service providers cannot be exactly the same as those applicable to credit institutions, but they must be based on them in proportion to the risks actually incurred relative to the types of risk defined in Directive 2000/12/CE.

Seen from this angle, your rapporteur is in agreement with the rule whereby the activities of a payment institution would be subject to authorisation.

He nevertheless proposes requiring the holding of a minimum capital by payment institutions, the size of which would be proportionate to the activities actually engaged in. In addition, clients’ funds would have to be protected against bankruptcy of institutions by the introduction of a ring-fencing mechanism.

Their activities should be limited and rigorously separated from other commercial activities. The reception of deposits not directly linked to a payment and the granting of credit would be excluded.

These establishments should be subject to controls by the national authority responsible for overseeing credit institutions in order to guarantee consistent philosophy and practice in the exercise of controls, even if the degree of control was different in the case of payment institutions.

Contrary to what the Commission proposes, exercise of the activities of payment institutions should be restricted to authorised legal persons. In our opinion, the derogation allowing natural or legal persons to provide payment services without being bound by all the obligations of this category of service provider should be removed, even though the reason given is that of facilitating ‘the gradual migration of these providers from the unofficial economy to the official sector’.

The amendments proposed by your rapporteur aim to reinforce in a proportionate fashion the status and control of payments institutions and are intended to provide consumers and users with the security they are entitled to expect from a payment system.

III - Transparency of conditions for payment services

The provisions contained in Title III relating to the transparency of conditions for payment services and their cost, as well as to the information to be given to users of payment services, are generally satisfactory. Some clarifications and changes nevertheless need to be made on a number of technical and practical points.

Notably, consumers and users should be provided with clear, succinct information, inter alia in the shape of a form, so that they can compare the offers of different payment service providers and choose on the basis of a full knowledge of the facts.

IV - Rights and obligations linked to the provision and use of payment services

Title IV, which defines the rights and obligations linked to the provision and use of payment services, is going along the right lines. Harmonisation of national legal systems governing payment would underpin the efforts of the banking sector to put in place the SEPA, an initiative which has the support of your rapporteur.

However, certain points need to be clarified or improved with a view to making relations between payment service providers and users more balanced.

With regard to the execution time, the J+1 objective seems realistic in the long term, provided that the scope of the directive was narrowed to cover only payments made within the single market in the currencies of the Member States.

While present or future technology may allow the time taken to process payments to be considerably reduced, the fact remains that implementation in reality calls for expensive infrastructure. The principle of proportionality between the real usefulness to the user of a short payment execution time and the cost of the payment must therefore be borne in mind.

And, indeed, there is nothing to prevent competition between payment service providers from being exercised not only in the area of price, but also in that of execution time set against price.

This being the case, it would be advisable to postpone the J+1 objective until 2012 and to extend it each time that currency exchange was necessary.

OPINION of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (5.7.2006)

for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC
(COM(2005)0603 – C6‑0411/2005 – 2005/0245(COD)

Draftswoman: Mia De Vits

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

In general, we are in favour of the objective of the proposal on payment services in the internal market. By eliminating the legal obstacles and creating a level playing field, the competition on the payment service market could increase into the benefit of the consumers. However, the proposal needs to be adapted or clarified on some points, in order to guarantee a sufficient protection of the consumer. Therefore, my report for advice will be concentrated on the following main issues:

Title I: Subject & Scope:

For reasons of clarification and internal coherence, some definitions need to be improved. All the definitions need also to be gathered in one art. , art. 4.

For consumer protection reasons, it's necessary to preserve the statute of a payment institution to legal persons, and not to natural persons.

In our opinion, the scope of the proposal is too ambitious: by applying the proposal to payment services made in any currency and where at least one of the payment service providers is located in the Community, the proposal risks to go too far. Given the territorial limits of the application of an European directive, I propose to limit the scope to payment services where both the payment service providers are situated in the EU. Further on, it seems more appropriate to limit the scope to Euro and EU currency instead of all currencies.

The exclusion of the scope from the mobile operators doesn't seem the most appropriate solution.

The exclusion of application of title III and IV on payment services where the amount of the transaction exceeds 50000 does not seem, for consumer protection reasons, the best option. The 50000 euros limit and the exclusion of the application of title III and IV should be restricted to payment made by SME.

Title II: Payment institutions:

Although convinced of the need to increase competition on the payment service market on the one hand, and the differences between banks and payment institutions on the other hand, this might only be possible if there is a sufficient level playing field. Therefore, for consumer protection reasons and for the confidence in the financial system, the payment institutions need a stronger regulative framework. In these respect, I propose the following main adaptations:

-  to impose minimum capital requirement (art. 4 a new).

-  a restriction of payment institutions' activities (no more guaranteeing the execution of payment transactions and no more operating of payment systems).

-  a separate booking system and protection of the consumers by ring fencing the funds in case of a payment institution is broke.

-  record keeping for at least 5 years.

-  stronger supervision regime on the granting and the maintenance of an authorisation (art. 6 & 9)

-  limiting the possibility of outsourcing the payment institutions activities.

-  restrict the derogation regime laid down in art. 21.

Title III. Transparency of conditions for payment services:

These title goes in the right direction. However, for consumer protection reasons, and for reasons of clarification, some modifications are needed. For consumer protection reasons, some additional information should be given to the consumer at the moment the conditions of a payment transactions are communicated as well as at after the acceptance of the transaction. This concerns single payment transactions and framework contracts as well.

Therefore, art. 26 and 31 on the communication of conditions should be amended by adding

-  information enabling the consumer to consult tariffs,

-  the conditions and the period of time under which the payer has a right to refund, the right of the payer to revoke a payment,

-  information concerning the liability for execution, including the liability and conditions regarding unauthorised payment transactions.

The period to terminate a payment contract should be extended to two months instead of one month.

Finally, the definition on micro payments (art. 38) should be adapted by decreasing from 50 euros to 10 euros, given the number of payments made by consumers below of 50 euros.

Title IV. Rights and obligations in relation to the provision and use of payment services:

From a consumer protection point of view, it seems appropriate to restrict the payment service providers possibility to block the user’s payment verification instrument. (art. 43 par. 2).

In case of a loss, a theft, or misappropriation of the payment verification instrument, the consumer should also be able, without undue delay of becoming aware of this event, to notify this by phone.(art. 46).

The payment service provider must bear the risk of sending any electronic funds transfer instrument to the holder, or of sending any means allowing its use (pin number , for example). (art. 47 par. 3).

A clear definition or description of ‘serious negligence’ is needed in case of a disputed authorisation. Nevertheless, the user will not incur any liability if there has been no physical presentation of the payment instrument and electronic identification.

We don't share the opinion of a need of presumption of negligence: the mere fact that a third person was able to use the instrument, cannot prove that the holder of the instrument has been negligent. It's up to the issuer to provide elements that prove the absence or the existence of extreme negligence or fraud of the holder. The contrary would make the limitation of liability to 150 euros, the main feature of the system, purely fictions.

Member States should be allowed to adopt dispositions limiting further the liability of the user in case of a liability for losses in respect of unauthorised payment transactions. We don't find it appropriate that the user will automatically be liable for all the transactions taking place before the notification of the loss or theft.

We are in favour of the possibility to refund and revoke a transaction. Only the period in which this should happen, needs some modification. We also fully support the rule laid down in art. 57 stating the explicit prohibition to make any deduction from the amount transferred. In case of a violation of this principle, a specific sanction should be imposed.

Concerning the execution time, we fully agree with the proposal made by the Commission, but have some doubts on the technical feasibility. Therefore, some adaptations are considerable. However, given their importance for the consumer, we do not agree to exclude micro payment from the scope of the articles concerning the execution time.

In order to avoid that the payment providers will try to recuperate the supplementary costs of the reforms on the users, we would propose the following adaptations:

- art. 60 par. 1: the amount should be credited to the payee’s payment service provider a the latest at the end of the first working day following the point in time of acceptance instead of to the payee’s payment account.

- if the transaction is initiated by the payer and includes a currency conversion towards a currency which is not a currency of the EU member states, the parties may agree explicitly on a period no longer than three days.

We believe the division of the liability in art. 67 in case of a non-execution or a defective execution of a payment transaction goes in the right direction. However, for consumer protection reasons, its advisable to delete the sentence in art. 70 stating that the payment service provider will not be liable in case of force majeure.

Finally, we are not convinced of the added value of art. 78 as formulated in the proposal: in our opinion and dependant of the adoption of some crucial amendments, we believe member states should maintain the competence to go further than the dispositions of this proposal in order to protect consumer interest. In this respect, this proposal should be a minimum.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 21 A (new)
	(21a) In the case of unauthorised use of verification instruments, the following behaviour should inter alia be considered as gross negligence: the fact that the holder noted his personal identification number or any other code in an easily recognisable form, and particularly on the electronic funds transfer instrument or on an object or document kept or carried by the holder with the instrument, as well as the fact that the holder did not notify the issuer that the instrument had been lost or stolen as soon as he became aware of that fact. To assess the payment service user’s negligence, account should be taken of all the actual circumstances. The production by the issuer of the relevant records and the use of the payment instrument with the code known only to the holder, should not be considered sufficient evidence of the latter’s negligence. Clauses and conditions, or the combination of clauses and conditions, in the contract for the provision and use of the electronic funds transfer instrument, whose effect would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or reduce the burden of proof on the issuer, should be considered null and void.
Justification
The amendment is based on amendment 63 of the draftswoman and should be taken as a recital explaining Article 46.
Amendment 2 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 1
1. This Directive shall apply only to business activities, listed in the Annex, consisting in the execution of payment transactions on behalf of a natural or legal person, hereinafter “payment services”, where at least one of the payment service providers is located in the Community.	1. This Directive shall apply only to payment services as defined in Article 4, where the payment service providers are located in the Community.
However, for payment services where the amount of the transaction exceeds EUR 50 000, Titles III and IV shall not apply.	However, for payment services where the amount of the transaction exceeds EUR 50 000, Titles III and IV shall not apply, in so far as the payment service is executed on behalf of a SME. The EUR 50 000 limit shall not apply in the case of payment services executed on behalf of consumers.
For the purposes of this Directive, a payment transaction shall consist in the act, initiated by the payer or by the payee, of depositing, withdrawing or transferring funds from a payer to a payee, irrespective of any underlying obligations between the payment service users.
Justification
For reasons of internal coherence, it's preferable to define all the concepts in article 4. Further on, it´s more appropriate to limit the geographical scope of the directive to the community instead of an extension to third countries
Amendment 3 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Save where otherwise provided, this Directive shall apply to payment services made in any currency.	2. This Directive shall apply to payment services made in Member States’ currencies.
Amendment 4 ARTICLE 3, POINT (I)
(i) services that can be used to acquire goods or services only within a limited network of affiliated service providers and are based on instruments like vouchers and cards in so far as such instruments are not redeemable;	(i) services that can be used to acquire goods or services which are based on instruments like vouchers and cards in so far as such instruments are not redeemable;
Justification
It is desirable to clarify this provision so as to distinguish between, on the one hand, vouchers which are not redeemable, such as meal vouchers, and locally limited networks of business people.
Cards and other debit instruments should be included in the scope of the Directive, as such cards must meet the same legal, technical or security requirements as other means of payment.
Amendment 5 ARTICLE 3, POINT (J)
(j) payment transactions executed by means of a mobile telephone or any other digital or IT device, where all the following conditions are met:	deleted
(i) the service provider operating the telecommunication or IT system or network is closely involved in the development of the digital goods or electronic communication services provided;
(ii) the goods and services cannot be delivered in the absence of the service provider;
(iii) there is no alternative option for remuneration
Justification
In order to anticipate on future payment systems, and to avoid difficulties in drawing the borderline between service included and services excluded from the scope, it's preferable to delete this exemption.
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 4, POINT 1 (I)
(i) if the payment institution is a natural person, the Member State where the head office of the payment service provider is situated;	deleted
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 4, POINT 4
(4) "payer" means a natural or legal person who has the right of disposal of funds and who allows them to be transferred to a payee;	(4) "payer" means a natural or legal person who as an account-holder permits the transfer of money from an account or, if no account exists, a natural or legal person who issues the instruction for a money transfer;
Justification
The amendment serves to clarify that 'payer' means the contracting partner of the service provider. The proposed approach makes no sense in relation to the rights and obligations of the payer as regulated in Title III, since these always presuppose a contract between the payer and the service provider.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 4, POINT 9
(9) “availability of funds” means that the funds on a payment account may be used by the payment service user without fees being charged;	deleted
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 4, POINT 11 A (new)
	(11a)"'banking day" means a day when the payment service provider of the payer involved in the payment transaction and the payment service provider of the payee involved in it are ordinarily open for business with customers;
Justification
The definition of 'banking day' is intended for purposes of clarification.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 A (new)
	(19a) "payment services" means the business activities listed in the Annex consisting in the execution of payment transactions on behalf of a natural or legal person where the payment service providers are located in the Community;
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 B (new)
	(19b) "execution time" means the point in time between the acceptance of a payment order by a payment service provider and the point in time when the amount to be paid pursuant to the payment order is made available to the payee;
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 4, POINT 19 C (new)
	(19c) "micro payments" means a contract concerning payments not exceeding EUR 10.
Justification
Given the broad obligations to fulfil and the risks to cover by a payment institution, it doesn't seem appropriate, for consumer protection reasons, to allow natural persons to establish a payment institution. For reasons of coherence with existing European legislations, the added definitions are taken directly from art. 2 of directive 2001/24/EC of the EP and the Council of 4 April on the reorganisation and the winding up of credit institutions.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 5, POINT (H)
(h) where the applicant is a legal person, the identity of the natural persons who are its representatives, its majority shareholders and who act as directors as well as evidence that those persons are of good repute and have appropriate knowledge and ability to perform payment services;	(h) where the applicant is a legal person, the identity of the directors, persons responsible for the management of the payment institution and its majority shareholders as well as evidence that those persons are of good repute and have appropriate knowledge and ability to perform payment services;
Justification
These modifications together with amendments on art. 10 should make it possible to create a level playing field and organise a real supervision on payment institution They are also justified for reasons of coherency with art. 4
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 5 A (new), PARAGRAPH 1
	Article 5a
	Initial capital requirements
	1. Payment institutions shall hold capital, as defined in Article 57(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions1, as follows:
	(a) where the payment institution carries on only those activities mentioned in point 7 of the Annex and where these are carried out within the time limits laid down in the first sentence of Article 60(1) or more swiftly, its capital shall at no time be less than EUR 50 000;
	(b) where the payment institution carries on the activity mentioned in point (a) above and/or:
	(i) the activities mentioned in point 1 of the Annex, but where these are not carried out within the time limits laid down in the first sentence of Article 60(1), and/or
	(ii) any of the activities mentioned in points 5 and/or 8 and/or 9 of the Annex, and/or
	(iii) where any of the ancillary services mentioned in Article 10(1)(b) and (c) are offered,
	its capital shall at no time be less than EUR 125 000;
	(c) where the payment institution carries on any of the activities mentioned in points (a) or (b) above and/or any of the activities in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Annex, its capital shall at no time be less than EUR 730 000.
	____ 1 OJ L 177, 30.6.2006, p. 1.
Justification
It necessary to link the amount of initial capital held by a payment institution to the nature of the risks to which it is exposed. These risks are analogous to some of the risks faced by investment firms and therefore capital levels based on the recently reviewed Capital Adequacy Directive shall be proposed. In conjunction with the client funds protection envisaged in paragraph 10 a and b below these proposals represent a fair balance between the desire to introduce more competition to the payments market, and the need to protect consumers funds.
Amendment 15 ARTICLE 5 A (new), PARAGRAPH 2
	2. Notwithstanding the minimum capital requirements set out above, competent authorities shall be satisfied that the payment institution holds sufficient capital to support all its business activities at all times.
Justification
All payments institutions should be financially sound at all times.
Amendment 16 ARTICLE 5 A (new), PARAGRAPH 3
	3. Payment institutions shall inform the competent authorities without delay if their capital falls below the amounts required by paragraph 1. In such circumstances the competent authorities shall without delay take steps to ensure the effectiveness of the arrangements described in Articles 10a and 10b and shall establish, together with the payment institution, a plan for the recapitalisation of the payment institution.
Justification
Where payments institutions suffer financial difficulties it is vital that Member States competent authorities take any legal steps necessary to ensure that funds held on behalf of customers are fully secured for the benefit of those customers.
Amendment 17 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 1
Authorisation shall be granted if the information and evidence accompanying the application complies with all the requirements laid down in Article 5.	Authorisation shall be granted if the information and evidence accompanying the application complies with all the requirements laid down in Articles 5 and 5a.
Justification
The requirements concerning capital must be complied with.
Amendment 18 ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH 2
The application for authorisation shall not be examined in the light of requirements other than those laid down in Article 5.	deleted
Justification
This amendment makes it possible to create a level playing field and to organise a real supervision on payment institution. Reference to the freedom to provide services and establishment are laid down in the Treaty, and therefore, no need to be repeated in this article.
Amendment 19 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 2
The register shall be updated on a regular basis. It shall be publicly available for consultation and accessible online.	The register shall contain information on the services and the activities laid down in Article 10 for which the payment institution is authorised or registered. It shall be publicly available for consultation, accessible online and shall be updated on a regular basis.
Justification
This supervision measure is justified for consumer protection reasons and in order to create a level playing field.
Amendment 20 ARTICLE 9
Where any change affects the accuracy of information and evidence provided under Article 5, the payment institution shall without undue delay inform the competent authority of its home Member State accordingly.	Where any change affects the accuracy of information and evidence provided under Article 4a and Article 5, the payment institution shall without undue delay inform the competent authority of its home Member State accordingly.
Justification
As being one of the requirements for an authorisation, any change in the capital requirement should be mentioned without any delay.
Amendment 21 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Payment institutions shall be entitled to engage in the following activities:	1. Payment institutions shall be entitled to engage in the following activities:
(a) the provision of payment services;	(a) the provision of payment services as provided for in the Annex;
(b) the provision of operational and related ancillary services such as the guaranteeing execution of payment transactions, foreign exchange services, safekeeping activities, and storage and processing of data;	(b) the provision of operational and related ancillary services, insofar as these are necessary in order to provide payment services as referred to at (a);
(c) the accessing and operation of payment systems for the purposes of transferring, clearing and settling funds, including any instruments and procedures relating to the systems.	(c) the accessing of payment systems for the purposes of transferring, clearing and settling funds, including any instruments and procedures relating to the systems.
	Payment institutions may not perform any deposit transactions, offer any credit services or stand surety.
Justification
In order to foster consumer confidence in the financial system, it is necessary to restrict the fields of activity of payment institutions to those listed in the annex. In addition, the amendment serves the purpose of clarification, in order to prevent evasion.
Amendment 22 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. A payment institution shall:
	(a) segregate and account for separately in its books funds received from payment service users, accepted for a payment transaction, from other funds accepted for activities other than payment services;
	(b) keep the funds of a payment service user under an account name which clearly identifies the payment service user.
	No funds of a payment service user may be commingled with the funds of a payment service provider or any other payment service user or any other person other than the payment service user on whose behalf the funds are held.
	The funds of a payment service user shall be insulated from any third party action against the payment institution.
Justification
In order to maintain consumer confidentiality in the financial system and to avoid reputation problems for the whole sector, it's necessary that appropriate measures are imposed, notably by limiting the activities of PI to these cited in the annex (specialisation principle of the PI), by limiting its investments, and by protecting the funds they receive from payment service users. Consideration 9 should also be read in this sense.
Amendment 23 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 2 B (new)
	2b. In the event that one or more reorganisation measures or winding-up proceedings are opened against a payment institution, the relevant administrative or judicial authorities, or the relevant administrator or liquidator, as the case may be, shall promptly return the funds of all payment service users to such payment service users in priority to all other claims against that payment institution.
	In the event that one or more reorganisation measures or winding-up proceedings are opened against a payment institution and insufficient funds are available for remittance of all the funds due to payment service users, the relevant administrative or judicial authorities, or the relevant administrator or liquidator, as the case may be, shall promptly distribute to payment service users the funds of such payment service users on a pro rata basis according to their claims and in priority to all other claims against that payment institution.
Justification
In order to maintain consumer confidentiality in the financial system and to avoid reputation problems for the whole sector, it's necessary that appropriate measures are imposed, notably by limiting the activities of PI to these cited in the annex (specialisation principle of the PI), by limiting its investments, and by protecting the funds they receive from payment service users. Consideration 9 should also be read in this sense.
Amendment 24 ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 3
3. The business activities of authorised payment institutions shall be non-exclusive and shall not be restricted to payment services, having regard to the applicable national and Community law.	deleted
Justification
For reasons of legal security, it 's preferable to limit the Payment institutions activities.
Amendment 25 ARTICLE 12, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Member States shall require that payment institutions remain fully liable for any acts of their managers, employees, or any tied agent or subsidiary, pursuant to this Directive.	2. Member States shall require that payment institutions remain fully liable for any acts of their managers, employees, or any tied agent, subsidiary or outsourced entity, pursuant to this Directive.
Justification
Payment institutions should be also liable for their outsourced activities.
Amendment 26 ARTICLE 13
Member States shall require payment institutions to keep records of all services and transactions for a reasonable time, but not more than five years.	Member States shall require payment institutions to keep records of all services and transactions for a period of at least one year, but not more than five years.
Justification
It is desirable to clarify the term 'reasonable time'.
Amendment 27 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2, INTRODUCTORY PART
In order to check compliance with this Title, the competent authorities may take only the following steps:	In order to check compliance with this Title, the competent authorities should take at least the following steps, in particular:
Justification
For consumer protection reasons and their confidence in the financial system, an appropriate control on PI is necessary.
Amendment 28 ARTICLE 16, PARAGRAPH 2, POINT (E)
(e) to suspend or withdraw authorisation in cases where the conditions for authorisation in accordance with Article 5 are no longer fulfilled.	(e) to suspend or withdraw authorisation in cases where the conditions for authorisation in accordance with Article 5, the provisions of Article 4a (capital requirements) and/or the provisions of Article 10a are not or are no longer fulfilled.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons and their confidence in the financial system, an appropriate control on PI is necessary.
Amendment 29 ARTICLE 21, PARAGRAPH 1
1. By way of derogation from point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 1, Member States may, on a case by case basis, allow natural or legal persons to be entered in the register established under Article 8, without application of the procedure set out in Section 1, where both the following conditions are satisfied:	1. Member States may, by way of derogation from point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 1, in exceptional and individual cases, allow legal persons to be entered in the register established under Article 8, without application of the procedure set out in Section 1, where the total business activities of the person concerned, including any tied agent or subsidiary for which it assumes full responsibility, generates a total amount of funds outstanding which were accepted for the provision of payment services and which does not exceed a monthly average of EUR 150 000.
(a) the total business activities of the person concerned, including any tied agent or subsidiary for which it assumes full responsibility, generates a total amount of funds outstanding which were accepted for the provision of payment services and which does not exceed EUR 5 million on average over a month and EUR 6 million at any given point in time.
(b) such registration is considered to be in the public interest for either of the following reasons
(i) the person concerned plays a vital role in financial intermediation, providing access to payment services for underprivileged social groups, in particular where the provision by other providers of the services in question is unlikely or would take a long time;
(ii) it is necessary for the effective implementation of money laundering rules or mechanisms to prevent terrorist financing.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons and in order to guarantee the financial stability, it's appropriate to restrict the derogation conditions of this article. Consideration 11 should also be read in this sense.
Amendment 30 ARTICLE 21, PARAGRAPH 3
3. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall notify the competent authorities of any change in their situation which is relevant to the condition specified in point (a) of paragraph 1.	3. The persons referred to in paragraph 1 shall notify the competent authorities of any change in their situation which is relevant to the condition specified in paragraph 1.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons and in order to guarantee the financial stability, it's appropriate to restrict the derogation conditions of this article.
Amendment 31 ARTICLE 21, PARAGRAPH 3 A (new)
	3a. This waiver shall not be applied in respect of provisions as laid down in Directive 2005/60/EC or national anti-money-laundering provisions.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons and in order to guarantee the financial stability, it's appropriate to restrict the derogation conditions of this article.
Amendment 32 ARTICLE 23, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall ensure that rules on access to and operation of payment systems shall be objective and proportionate and shall not inhibit access more than is necessary to safeguard against specific risks and to protect the financial safety of the payment system.	1. Member States shall ensure that rules on access to and operation of payment systems shall be objective and proportionate and shall not inhibit access more than is necessary to safeguard against risks and to protect the financial safety of the payment system.
	However, in assessing the admission of a payment institution, solvency requirements may be imposed.
Justification
In the light of the aim of safeguarding financial stability, it's not opportune to force payment systems to accept payment institutions. Payment systems should have the freedom and authority to impose more stringent admittance requirements, like solvency requirements.
Amendment 33 ARTICLE 23, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) any restriction on the basis of institutional status.	deleted
Justification
In the light of the aim of safeguarding financial stability, it's not opportune to force payment systems to accept payment institutions. Payment systems should have the freedom and authority to impose more stringent admittance requirements, like solvency requirements.
Amendment 34 ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall require that the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium available and accessible to him the conditions in accordance with Article 26.	1. Member States shall require that the payment service provider is to make available to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium available and accessible to him the conditions in accordance with Article 26.
Justification
The insertion of the words 'make available' accords with Article 3 of Directive 97/5/EC and Article 4 of Regulation 2560/2001 and should apply to the whole of Title III.
Amendment 35 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A) (II)
(ii) the execution time for the payment service to be provided;	(ii) the execution time (banking business days) within the institution itself for the payment service to be provided;
Justification
The information requirements should be limited to what is necessary and essential for the consumer. The clarity of the provisions is of particular importance here. The consumer can always request any additional information which is needed in individual cases.
The deletion of the last sentence of paragraph 1 follows automatically from the restriction of the scope.
Amendment 36 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A) (VI A) (new)
	(via) information enabling the consumer to consult tariffs;
Amendment 37 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A) (VI B) (new)
	(vib) the right of the payer to revoke a payment;
Justification
The conditions should make clear how the payer can revoke a payment.
Amendment 38 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) all charges payable by the payment service user to the payment service provider and, where applicable, the exchange rate applied to the payment transaction;	(c) all charges payable by the payment service user to the payment service provider;
Justification
The information requirements should be limited to what is necessary and essential for the consumer. The clarity of the provisions is of particular importance here. The consumer can always request any additional information which is needed in individual cases.
The deletion of the last sentence of paragraph 1 follows automatically from the restriction of the scope.
Amendment 39 ARTICLE 26, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (E)
(e) an indication of the redress and complaint procedures available to the payment service user in accordance with Chapter 4 of Title IV and the method of accessing them;	deleted
Justification
The information requirements should be limited to what is necessary and essential for the consumer. The clarity of the provisions is of particular importance here. The consumer can always request any additional information which is needed in individual cases.
The deletion of the last sentence of paragraph 1 follows automatically from the restriction of the scope.
Amendment 40 ARTICLE 27, POINT (A)
(a) a reference enabling the payment service user to identify the payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee;	(a) a reference enabling the payment service user to identify the payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee, insofar as this information has not already been supplied to the payer in advance and no express provision is made for this;
Justification
The obligations to supply information to the payer after acceptance of the payment order which are provided for in Article 27 should be rejected as excessive. Where an account exists (provided for by a 'framework contract' as referred to in Article 29 et seq.), the necessary information will appear in a bank statement. To supply all the data would overload the bank statement and thus detract from transparency.
If on the other hand a cash deposit were made without the payer's holding an account, the information referred to here would have be recorded in a document delivered separately from the transfer form, which would give rise to a significant amount of red tape.
Amendment 41 ARTICLE 27, POINT (A A) (new)
	(aa) the date of the transaction;
Justification
For reasons of internal coherence, reference should be made to art. 54 concerning the acceptance of a payment order. Further on, it’s necessary for the consumers to know the exact date of transaction and the exact amount expressed in the currency of the transaction.
Amendment 42 ARTICLE 27, POINT (B)
(b) the amount of the payment transaction and of any commission fees and charges applied to the payment transaction that the payer had to pay to his payment service provider;	(b) the amount of the payment transaction expressed in the currency of the transaction and the amount of any commission fees and charges applied to the payment transaction that the payer had to pay to his payment service provider;
Justification
For reasons of internal coherence, reference should be made to art. 54 concerning the acceptance of a payment order. Further on, it’s necessary for the consumers to know the exact date of transaction and the exact amount expressed in the currency of the transaction.
Amendment 43 ARTICLE 28, INTRODUCTORY PART
Subsequent to making funds received for the payee available to him, the payment service provider shall make available to the payee, in the same way as provided for in Articles 25(1) and 26(2), at least the following information:	Subsequent to making funds received for the payee available to him, the payment service provider of the payee shall make available to him, in the same way as provided for in Articles 25(1) and 26(2), at least the following information:
Justification
The amendment clarifies the point that in this case 'payment service provider' means the payment service provider of the payee. The requirement should not on any account apply to the payment service provider of the payer.
Amendment 44 ARTICLE 30
1. Member States shall require that in good time before the payment service user is bound by any framework contract or the offer, the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium, available and accessible to the payment service user, the conditions in accordance with Article 31.	Before the payment service user is bound by any framework contract or the offer, the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium, available and accessible to the payment service user, the conditions in accordance with Article 31.
2. If the contract has been concluded at the request of the payment service user using a means of distance communication which does not enable the payment service provider to comply with paragraph 1, the payment service provider shall fulfil his obligations under that paragraph as soon as reasonably possible after the conclusion of the contract.
Justification
The payment service provider should also communicate the conditions, even if the contract has been concluded at the request of the payment service user using a means of distance communication which
Amendment 45 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (B) (II)
(ii) the execution time and the relevant maximum execution time for the payment services to be provided;	(ii) the relevant maximum execution time (banking business days) for the payment services requested by the payer;
Justification
Where payments involve more than one institution, it is not possible for a service provider to state with absolute certainty the actual execution time, as this can only be conclusively ascertained after the payment has been executed. Instead, the obligation to provide information should be confined to an indication of the statutory or contractual maximum execution times, as already provided for in the EU transfer directive, 97/5/EC, and EU Regulation 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euros.
Amendment 46 ARTICLE 31, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT(C)
(c) spending ceilings envisaged for specific payment services in accordance with Article 43(1);	(c) the possibility of spending ceilings which is provided for in the case of specific payment services in accordance with Article 43(1);
Justification
In the precontractual sphere, a decision on spending ceilings and hence a credit decision cannot be taken in the abstract, as it is an individual discretionary ceiling. Therefore it is only possible to provide information about the 'possibility of spending ceilings'.
Amendment 47 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Any change in the contractual conditions communicated to the payment service user pursuant to Article 31(1) shall be proposed by the payment service provider in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) and not less than one month before the date of its proposed application.	1. Any change in the contractual conditions communicated to the payment service user pursuant to Article 31(1) which affects the payment service user shall be made available to him by the payment service provider in the way provided for in the contract and not less than one month before the date of its proposed application.
Justification
Linguistic simplification. See also justification for amendment to Article 25.
Amendment 48 ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH 1
1. The termination of a framework contract which has been concluded for a period of 12 months or more or for an indefinite period shall be free of charges for the payment service user.	1. The termination by the payment service user of a framework contract which has been concluded for a period of 12 months or more or for an indefinite period shall be free of charges for the payment service user once 12 months have elapsed and subject to a period of notice not exceeding one month.
Fees for payment services charged on a regular basis shall be payable only proportionally up to the termination of the contract. If such fees are paid in advance, they shall be reimbursed proportionally.	Fees for payment services charged on a regular basis shall be payable only proportionally up to the termination of the contract by the payment service user. If such fees are paid in advance, they shall be reimbursed proportionally.
Justification
More precise formulation.
Amendment 49 ARTICLE 34, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Save where the payment service provider and the payment service user have explicitly agreed on a period of notice for the termination of a framework contract, framework contracts may be terminated immediately.	deleted
The period of notice may not exceed one month.
Amendment 50 ARTICLE 35, PARAGRAPH 2
In cases covered by Article 58(2), a bona fide estimate of any deductions shall be provided in advance.	deleted
Justification
The deletion follows from the limitation of the scope of the Directive.
Amendment 51 ARTICLE 36, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART AND POINT (A)
1. Subsequent to the execution of a payment transaction, the payment service provider shall provide the payer with at least the following information:	1. Subsequent to the execution of a payment transaction, the payment service provider shall make available to the payer at least the following information:
(a) a reference enabling the payment service user to identify each payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee;	(a) a reference enabling the payment service user to identify each payment transaction and, where appropriate, the information relating to the payee, insofar as this information has not already been supplied to the payer in advance and no express provision is made for this;
Justification
Paragraph 1(a) constitutes a considerable barrier to domestic payment transactions and would make it impossible to continue to use cash in-payment forms (payment instruction forms completed by the payee in advance and used by the payer to issue the instruction) in the way in which they are used at present. For the entry in the records and the image transfer, only the data from the coding line are used. Such data fields as 'payee' are irrelevant for the purpose of processing the debit. Thus the information called for here is not available.
Otherwise, see justification concerning Article 36, paragraph 2.
Amendment 52 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
1. Subsequent to making the funds received for the payee available to the latter, the payment service provider shall provide the payee, in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2), with at least the following information:	1. Subsequent to making the funds received for the payee available to the latter, the payment service provider shall make available to the payee, in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2), the following information:
Justification
For the purpose of communicating information about the payment made, the currently widespread practice - which is also increasingly demanded by users - of making the information available to the payment service user, for example on request via the statement-of-account printer of the service provider or through on-line banking, should suffice. This is also, from the customer's point of view, the cheapest way of providing the information.
Amendment 53 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINT (D)
(d) the amount of any commission, fees and charges applied to the payment transaction payable by the payee to his payment service provider for receiving the payment;	(d) the amount of any commission, fees and charges applied to the payment transaction payable by the payee to his payment service provider or to any intermediary for receiving the payment;
Justification
Not only the provider, but every intermediary should give the relevant information to the payee after receipt of the funds
Amendment 54 ARTICLE 37, PARAGRAPH 2
2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be provided on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be supplied in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).	2. It may be a condition of a framework contract that the information referred to in paragraph 1 is to be made available on a regular basis, with a specified frequency. In any case, this information shall be made available in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2).
Justification
See the justification for the amendment to paragraph 1.
Amendment 55 ARTICLE 38, PARAGRAPH 1
1. By way of derogation from Articles 29 to 33, in the case of a contract concerning payments where no individual payment can exceed EUR 50, the payment service provider shall communicate to the payment service user in the manner provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) only the main characteristics of the payment service to be provided, the way in which it can be used and all charges applicable.	1. By way of derogation from Articles 29 to 33, in the case of a micro payment the payment service provider shall communicate to the payment service user in the manner provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) only the main characteristics of the payment service to be provided, the way in which it can be used and all charges applicable.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons, it is more appropriate to decrease the 50 to 10 euros limit, given the number of payments made by consumers below of 50 euros.
Amendment 56 ARTICLE 39
Article 39	deleted
Transaction currency and currency conversion
1. Payments shall be made in the currency implicitly or explicitly agreed by the parties.
2. Where a currency conversion service is offered prior to the initiation of the payment transaction and where that service is offered at the point of sale or by the payee, the party offering the service to the payer shall disclose to the payer all fees and charges as well as the reference exchange rate to be used for converting the transaction.
The payer shall explicitly agree to the service on that basis.
Justification
The provisions of Article 39 concerning the relationship between the payer and the payee lie outside the scope defined in Article 2.
Amendment 57 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 2
Consent shall consist in an explicit authorisation for the payment service provider to effect a payment transaction or a series of transactions.	Consent shall consist in an explicit or implicit authorisation for the payment service provider to effect a payment transaction or a series of transactions.
Justification
To make the payer's consent dependent on 'explicit' authorisation would be too restrictive. Consent could only be granted by means of action by the user. In accordance with the general principles of civil law, consent is also deemed to be granted where a payment is approved by means of an action which implies consent or by means of a pre-agreed approval fiction.
Amendment 58 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 3
In the absence of such consent, a payment transaction shall be considered to be unauthorised.	In the absence of such consent, or in the event that such consent is validly withdrawn, a payment transaction shall be considered to be unauthorised.
Justification
To put the article clear and to guarantee a sufficient protection to the consumer.
Amendment 59 ARTICLE 43, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
2. If agreed in the framework contract, the payment service provider may reserve the right to block the use of a payment verification instrument even within the agreed spending ceiling provided that, in its view, the spending pattern gives rise to the suspicion of fraudulent use.	2. If agreed in the framework contract, the payment service provider may reserve the right to block the use of a payment verification instrument even within the agreed spending ceiling provided that, in its view, the spending pattern gives rise to the suspicion that the payment verification instrument has been or could be used fraudulently.
Justification
The amendments to the first sentence improve the linguistic formulation. The deletion of the second sentence is necessary because it is not clear what 'efforts' means. Moreover, the condition that an instrument may be blocked only after the user has been contacted is particularly counterproductive in case of fraud.
Amendment 60 ARTICLE 45, PARAGRAPH 1
1. On becoming aware of any unauthorised transaction, errors or other irregularity in the payments made from his account and contained in the information received in accordance with Article 36, the payer shall notify his payment service provider thereof without undue delay.	1. On becoming aware of any unauthorised transaction, errors or other irregularity in the payments made from his account and contained in the information received in accordance with Article 36, the payer shall notify his payment service provider thereof without undue delay and at all events within one year of the debit entry's being made.
Justification
On grounds of legal certainty for the service provider and user, it is necessary to supplement the provision with an end date, so that it is possible to say when a payment transaction is definitive. A one-year time limit also corresponds to the period for which records are to be kept pursuant to Article 44.
Amendment 61 ARTICLE 45, PARAGRAPH 2
2. In the case of a series of transactions, authorisation may be withdrawn and any subsequent payment transaction shall be considered as unauthorised without prejudice to Article 56.	2. If an authorisation is granted for a series of transactions, it may be countermanded for the future with the effect that, without prejudice to Article 56, any subsequent payment transaction shall be considered as unauthorised.
Justification
Clarification.
Amendment 62 ARTICLE 46
The payment service user shall meet the following obligations:	The payment service user shall meet the following obligations:
	(- a) immediately after receiving a payment verification instrument, to - in particular - take all reasonable measures to protect the security features against access by unauthorised persons;
	(-aa) to ensure, in particular, that the payment verification instrument and the personalised security features associated with it are not accessible to any other person;
(a) to use a payment verification instrument in accordance with the terms governing the issuing and use of the instrument;	(a) to use a payment verification instrument in accordance with the terms governing the issuing and use of the instrument;
(b) to notify the payment service provider, or the entity specified by the latter, without undue delay on becoming aware of loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment verification instrument or of its unauthorised use.	(b) to notify, e.g. by phone, the payment service provider, or the entity specified by the latter, without undue delay on becoming aware of loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment verification instrument or of its unauthorised use.
For the purposes of point (a), the payment service user shall, in particular, as soon as the payment service user receives a payment verification instrument, take all reasonable steps to keep its security features safe.
Justification
Intended to make it clear that a payment service user must take measures in his sphere to prevent misuse of payment verification instruments and the associated personalised security features. This will also serve to protect payment transaction systems as a whole by reducing the costs of covering risks. As the phone is often the fastest way to notify lost or theft, and therefore the best way to prevent further transactions.
Amendment 63 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C)
(c) to ensure that appropriate means are available at all times to enable the payment service user to make a notification pursuant to Article 46(b).	(c) to ensure that at all times the payment service user can make a notification pursuant to Article 46(b).
Justification
Clarifies the German version.
Amendment 64 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (C A) (new)
	(ca) to prevent all use of the payment verification instrument, once the notification under Article 46(b) has been made.
Amendment 65 ARTICLE 48, PARAGRAPH 3
3. For the purposes of rebutting the presumption referred to in paragraph 2, the use of a payment verification instrument recorded by the payment service provider shall not, of itself, be sufficient to establish either that the payment was authorised by the payment service user or that the payment service user acted fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to his obligations under Article 46.	3. For the purposes of rebutting the presumption referred to in paragraph 2, it shall be evaluated whether or not the use of a payment verification instrument recorded by the payment service provider is sufficient to establish either that the payment was authorised by the payment service user or that the payment service user acted fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to his obligations under Article 46.
Amendment 66 ARTICLE 49, PARAGRAPH 1
Member States shall ensure that, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider refunds to the payment service user forthwith the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction or, where applicable, restores the payment account that had been debited with that amount to the situation that would have existed if the unauthorised payment transaction had not taken place.	Member States shall ensure that, in the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider refunds to the payment service user forthwith the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction or, where applicable, restores the payment account that had been debited with that amount to the situation that would have existed if the unauthorised payment transaction had not taken place. This entitlement to a refund from the payment service provider shall lapse one year after the unauthorised debit to the account.
Justification
The amendment serves to insert a time limit in Article 49, as the payment service provider does not usually have any information about the contractual relationship between the payment service user and the third party who has prompted the debit.
Amendment 67 ARTICLE 50, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. The payment service user shall bear the loss, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment verification instrument and occurring before he has fulfilled his obligation to notify his payment service provider under Article 46(b).	1. The payment service user shall bear the loss, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment verification instrument and occurring before he has fulfilled his obligation to notify his payment service provider under Article 46(b), provided that he has not acted with fraudulent intent or displayed gross negligence, particularly by neglecting his duties of care pursuant to Article 46.
Justification
The amendment clarifies the point that the limitation on liability applies only in cases in which the user has not acted with fraudulent intent or displayed gross negligence.
Amendment 68 ARTICLE 50, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
Member States may reduce that maximum amount further provided that such reduction does not apply to payment service providers authorised in other Member States.	Member States may reduce that maximum amount further.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons, it’s more appropriate to delete the restriction in art. 50 par. 1.
Amendment 69 ARTICLE 51, PARAGRAPH 2, SUBPARAGRAPH 2
Article 50(3) shall apply to electronic money in so far as the payment service provider is technically in a position to freeze or prevent further spending of the electronic money stored on an electronic device.	deleted
Justification
Paragraph 2(2) should be deleted. The electronic money referred to here should be regarded as equivalent to cash and should therefore not be regulated by this instrument.
Amendment 70 ARTICLE 52, PARAGRAPH 1, INTRODUCTORY PART
Member States shall ensure that a payer acting in good faith is entitled to a refund of an authorised payment transaction which has already been executed, if the following conditions are met:	Member States shall ensure that a payer is entitled to a refund of an authorised payment transaction which has arisen from instructions from the payee and has already been executed, if the following conditions are met:
Justification
The concept of 'acting in good faith' used in Article 52 should be deleted, as acts with fraudulent intent are in any case excluded. Otherwise this formulation would have to be included in every legislative instrument. Moreover, the refund clause is appropriate only for pull transactions, i.e. those where the payment is initiated by the payee and therefore cannot be monitored by the payer at the time of the payment. It is only in this case that the payer requires protection.
Amendment 71 ARTICLE 54, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1, POINTS (I) AND (II)
(i) the payment service provider has received the payment order;	(i) the payment service provider of the payer has received the payment order;
(ii) the payment service provider has completed authentication of the order, including a possible check on the availability of funds;	(ii) the payment service provider of the payer has completed authentication of the order, including a possible check on the availability of funds;
Justification
Article 54(1) requires clarification as regards which person points (i) and (ii) refer to.
Amendment 72 ARTICLE 57, PARAGRAPH 2
In the case of other payment transactions, the payer and the payee may, by mutual agreement, vary those requirements.	In the case of other payment transactions, the payer and the payee may conclude with their payment service providers agreements which differ.
Justification
It is only between the actual contracting parties that it is possible for differing agreements to be concluded. In this case, the parties concerned are the payer and the payee, on the one hand, and their respective payment service providers on the other.
Amendment 73 ARTICLE 58, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Member States shall, in either of the following situations, require the payment service provider to give a bona fide estimate of any deductions to be envisaged for the payment transaction:	deleted
(a) where the payment service providers of both the payer and the payee are located in the Community, but the payment transaction is denominated, in whole or in part, in a currency other than that of a Member State;
(b) where the payment service provider of either the payer or the payee is not located in the Community.
Justification
The deletion follows automatically from the limitation of the scope of the Directive in Article 2.
Amendment 74 ARTICLE 59, PARAGRAPH 2
It shall not apply to payment transactions which are considered to be micro payments.	deleted
Justification
There is no reason to execute micro payments not as fast as other payments.
Amendment 75 ARTICLE 60, PARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall require the payer’s payment service provider to ensure that, after the point in time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the point in time of acceptance. However, up to 1 January 2010, a payer and his payment service provider may agree on a period no longer than three days.	1. With effect from 1 January 2012, Member States shall require the payer’s payment service provider to ensure that, after the point in time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the point in time of acceptance.
Justification
This amendment retains the standard execution time of d+1 proposed by the Commission, but this execution time should be compulsory only from 1 January 2012.
However, in order to allow the customer greater choice and not a priori to exclude from the market small economic operators who do not have their own direct access to a payment transaction system, a differing individual agreement should remain possible.
Amendment 76 ARTICLE 61, PARAGRAPH 1
1. For a payment transaction initiated by or through the payee, Member States shall require the payment service provider to ensure that, after the point of time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the day on which the point in time of acceptance falls, unless otherwise explicitly agreed between the payee and his payment service provider.	1. For a payment transaction initiated by or through the payee, Member States shall require the payer's payment service provider to ensure that, after the point of time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment service provider payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the day on which the point in time of acceptance by the payer's payment service provider falls, unless otherwise explicitly agreed between the payee and his payment service provider.
Justification
For consumer protection reasons, a financial transaction should be executed as fast as technically possible.
Amendment 77 ARTICLE 63
In the case of a cash deposit by the payment service user into his own account, the payment service provider shall ensure that the amount is credited at the latest on the next working day after receipt of the funds.	Where a payment service user puts cash on his own account, the payment service provider shall ensure that the amount is credited at the latest on the next working day after receipt of the funds.
Justification
The reference to cash deposit implies that payment institutions could be deposit takers, which is not consistent with the stated intention that PI should not take deposits.
Amendment 78 ARTICLE 64
Article 64	deleted
National payment transactions
For purely national payment transactions, Member States may provide for shorter maximum execution times than those provided for in this Section.
Justification
Bearing in mind that the execution time provided for is d+1, this provision seems excessive; moreover, it would be contrary to the objective of full harmonisation.
Amendment 79 ARTICLE 65, TITLE
Availability of funds on a payment account	Availability of incoming funds on a payment account
Justification
In accordance with the limitation of the completion of the payment to the receipt of the payment by the institution receiving it, as proposed in Article 60, the provisions on crediting ought, in the interests of consistency, to apply to the crediting or payment of all amounts received to the payee. Overall, this would serve to differentiate correctly between the obligations of the payer's service provider and those of the payee's service provider (legal clarity).
Amendment 80 ARTICLE 65, PARAGRAPH 2
2. The payment service provider of the payer shall cease to make funds available to the payer as soon as those funds are debited from the payer’s payment account.	deleted
Justification
Paragraph 2 should be deleted, because the formulation serves no definable purpose beyond stating the obvious.
Amendment 81 ARTICLE 65, PARAGRAPH 3, SUBPARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	The party issuing an instruction may require a later value date than the date of entry.
Justification
A later value date would accord with the common practice of preventing overloading of the transfer system at the end of a quarter or of a year arising from payments due at a particular time.
Amendment 82 ARTICLE 65, PARAGRAPH 4
4. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be without prejudice to debits effected on savings accounts covered by explicit agreements regarding the use of funds in savings arrangements.	deleted
Justification
As savings accounts are in any case not classified as payment accounts, there is no need for regulation, so that paragraph 4 can be deleted.
Amendment 83 ARTICLE 66, PARAGRAPH 1
1. If a payment order is executed in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the user, the payment order shall be deemed to be executed correctly with regard to the payee specified. Where the IBAN was specified as the unique identifier it should take precedence over the name of the payee, if it is provided additionally. However, the payment service provider should, where possible, verify the consistency of the former with the latter.	1. If a payment order is executed in accordance with the unique identifier provided by the user, the payment order shall be deemed to be executed correctly with regard to the payee specified. Where the IBAN was specified as the unique identifier it should take precedence over the name of the payee, if it is provided additionally.
Justification
The last sentence of paragraph 1 should be deleted, particularly as what is meant by 'possible' is not defined.
Amendment 84 ARTICLE 67, PARAGRAPH 1
1. After the point in time of acceptance in accordance with Article 54(1), a payment service provider shall be strictly liable for the non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction made in accordance with Section 1.	1. After the point in time of acceptance in accordance with Article 54(1), a payment service provider shall be liable for the non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction made in accordance with Section 1.
In addition, the payment service provider shall be strictly liable for any charges, and for any interest charged to the payment service user as a consequence of the non execution or defective execution of the payment transaction.	In addition, the payment service provider shall be liable for any charges, and for any interest charged to the payment service user as a consequence of the non‑execution or defective execution of the payment transaction.
Justification
Strict liability - i.e. irrespective of fault - for non-execution or defective execution of a transaction would be contrary to principles of liability under civil law which apply in all Member States. If the liability clause is intended to have the effect that, in the event of non-execution or defective execution of a transaction involving more than one service provider, the party ordering the payment can hold his payment service provider responsible even for errors by a service provider which the latter uses to execute the transaction, it is sufficient that the payment service provider should be liable for his own errors and those of operators whom he uses to assist performance (liability for the performance of agents).
Amendment 85 ARTICLE 67, PARAGRAPH 2
2. If the payment service user claims that a payment order has not been accurately executed, the payment service provider shall show, without prejudice to factual elements produced by the payment service user, that the payment order was accurately recorded, executed and entered in the accounts.	2. If the payment service user claims that a payment order has not been accurately executed, the payment service provider shall show, without prejudice to factual elements produced by the payment service user, that the payment order was accurately recorded, executed and entered in the accounts. If the payment order has been executed correctly, the payment service user shall bear the costs of showing this.
Justification
The burden of proof on the service provider, for which paragraph 2 provides, can be accepted provided that the costs involved are borne by the user if the order is executed correctly.
Amendment 86 ARTICLE 76
Amendments and updating	Updating
In order to take account of technological and market developments in payment services and to ensure the uniform application of this Directive, the Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 77(2), amend the list of activities in the Annex to this Directive, in accordance with Articles 2 to 4.
It may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 77(2), update the amounts specified in Articles 2(1), 21(1)(a), 38 and 50(1) in order to take account of inflation and significant market developments.	The Commission may, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 77(2), update the amounts specified in Articles 2(1), 21(1)(a), 38 and 50(1) in order to take account of inflation and significant market developments.
Justification
Any amendment to the annex would result in a substantial alteration of the scope. Establishing the activities of payment institutions is a key element of the Directive. As these issues regarding its scope may have a considerable impact on the protection of the rights of consumers, such an amendment must not bypass the codecision procedure. As a rule, when new payment instruments are introduced, this does not happen at such short notice that the European legislator would be unable to respond by amending this Directive. This part of the article is therefore superfluous and should be deleted in its entirety. The second sentence should be supplemented accordingly.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC
References	COM(2005)0603 – C6‑0411/2005 – 2005/0245(COD)
Committee responsible	ECON
Opinion by   Date announced in plenary	IMCO 17.1.2006
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Mia De Vits 21.2.2006
Previous drafts(wo)man
Discussed in committee	21.3.2006		19.4.2006	3.5.2006	19.6.2006
Date adopted	19.6.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	34 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Charlotte Cederschiöld, Mia De Vits, Janelly Fourtou, Malcolm Harbour, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Anna Hedh, Edit Herczog, Pierre Jonckheer, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Lasse Lehtinen, Arlene McCarthy, Toine Manders, Manuel Medina Ortega, Zita Pleštinská, Giovanni Rivera, Heide Rühle, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Andreas Schwab, Eva-Britt Svensson, Marianne Thyssen, Jacques Toubon, Bernadette Vergnaud, Barbara Weiler
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	André Brie, Ieke van den Burg, Giles Chichester, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Konstantinos Hatzidakis, Syed Kamall, Othmar Karas, Cecilia Malmström, Angelika Niebler, Alexander Stubb, Gary Titley, Stefano Zappalà
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Reinhard Rack, Paul Rübig
Comments (available in one language only)	...

• [1]  OJ C ... /Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs (14.7.2006)

for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC
(COM(2005)0603 – C6-0411/2005 – 2005/0245(COD))

Draftsman: Rainer Wieland

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The proposal for a directive on payment services in the internal market is aimed at improving economies of scale and increasing competition, which should support the achievement of the Lisbon objectives. Establishing a common legal framework is supposed to allow the consumers to benefit from better transparency and greater choice in the payment services market, but will also require significant investments from services providers and businesses. In response to the Commission’s proposal, there is intensive discussion taking place as to the desirability and potential effects of its provisions. With regard to the scope of Committee on Legal Affairs’ competence, this Opinion contains amendments related to the scope of the directive, the most obvious improvements in legislative clarity, as well as certain institutional provisions, such as the one introducing the so-called comitology procedure.

Your draftsman supports the choice of legal base for this proposal, as well as the choice of directive rather than a regulation to harmonise the various national provisions on payment services.

Taking the simplification objectives under consideration, your draftsman is nonetheless concerned about the missed opportunity to repeal or amend also Regulation 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euro, thus limiting the number of legislative acts that regulate this area of European economy. Although it is possibly an unusual procedure, the Parliament should insist that the Commission incorporate those provisions of Regulation 2560/2001 that should remain in force in a separate article of the proposed directive, including a repeal clause. With this in mind, the present opinion contains amendments that initiate such an exercise, by modifying the title and a relevant recital and introducing a new article, formulated in such a way that the will of the Parliament is clearly stated, but not as a final legislative proposal.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Legal Affairs calls on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 TITLE
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL	Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on payment services in the internal market	on payment services in the internal market,
and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC	repealing Directive 97/5/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC
Amendment 2 RECITAL 5
(5) That framework should ensure the coordination of national provisions on prudential requirements, the access of new payment service providers to the market, information requirements, and the respective rights and obligations of payment services users. Within that framework, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, which created a single market for euro payments as far as prices are concerned, should be maintained. Those of Directive 97/5/EC and the recommendations made in Recommendations 87/598/EEC, 88/590/EEC and 97/489/EC should be integrated in a single act with binding force.	(5) That framework should ensure the coordination of national provisions on prudential requirements, the access of new payment service providers to the market, information requirements, and the respective rights and obligations of payment services users. Within that framework, the necessary provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, which created a single market for euro payments as far as prices are concerned, and those of Directive 97/5/EC and the recommendations made in Recommendations 87/598/EEC, 88/590/EEC and 97/489/EC should be integrated in a single act with binding force.
Justification
This amendment is proposed together with an amendment introducing a new Title IV(a) in order to achieve more legislative simplification.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 8 A (new)
	(8a) Even if it does not appear appropriate to burden these payment institutions with the full range of obligations incumbent on ‘traditional’ payment service providers up to now, it is essential in order to fulfil the need for security – not least, for payers – to require payment institutions to provide the same safeguards in connection with the transactions regulated by this directive as those demanded of ‘traditional’ payment service providers for comparable transactions.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 10
(10) It is necessary for the Member States to designate the authorities responsible for granting authorisation to payment institutions, for carrying out on-going controls and for deciding whether to withdraw authorisation. In order to ensure equality of treatment, Member States should not apply any requirements to payment institutions other than those provided for in this Directive. However, all decisions made by the competent authorities should be contestable before the courts. In addition, the tasks of the competent authorities should be without prejudice to the oversight of payment systems, which, according to the fourth indent of Article 105(2) of the Treaty, is a task to be carried out by the European System of Central Banks.	(10) It is necessary for the Member States to designate the authorities responsible for granting authorisation to payment institutions, for carrying out on-going controls and for deciding whether to withdraw authorisation. In order to ensure equality of treatment, Member States should not apply any requirements to payment institutions other than those provided for in this Directive, with the exception of statistical reporting requirements. However, all decisions made by the competent authorities should be contestable before the courts. In addition, the tasks of the competent authorities should be without prejudice to the oversight of payment systems, which, according to the fourth indent of Article 105(2) of the Treaty, is a task to be carried out by the European System of Central Banks.
Justification
The statistical reporting is a common requirement and is not covered by this proposal.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 18
(18) The information required should be proportionate to the needs of users and communicated in a standard manner. However, the information requirements for a single payment transaction should be different from those for a framework agreement which provides for a series of payment transactions.	(18) The information required should be proportionate to the needs of users and communicated in a standard manner. However, the information requirements for a single payment transaction should be different from those for a framework contract which provides for a series of payment transactions.
Justification
In order to assure the coherence of the text.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 28
(28) Given the differences between the rules governing the operation of payment systems within the Community and those governing payment systems in third countries, it is appropriate that the provisions on execution for the full amount and execution time be restricted to cases where the payment service providers both of the payer and of the payee are located in the Community.	(28) Given the additional requirements related to currency exchange, it is appropriate that the provisions on execution for the full amount and execution time be restricted to cases where the payment is made in euro.
Justification
This amendment is proposed together with an amendment changing Article 2, and restricting the scope of the whole Directive to payments within the Community and the scope of provisions on execution time (vide also amendment to Article 59(1)) - to the euro zone.
Amendment 7 RECITAL 30 A (new)
	(30a) On the other hand, it should be a central principle that the fact that a payment service provider is instructed to handle payments which may not necessarily constitute legal transactions is not generally the decisive factor in determining, and cannot influence, the assignment of obligations existing between payment service users. That is primarily at the free (contractual) disposal of the parties concerned.
Justification
To clarify the nature of the payment service provider’s remit.
Amendment 8 RECITAL 31 A (new)
	(31a) This Directive should safeguard the effectiveness of payment instruments which are used very effectively in some Member States in a large number of cases every year and present negligible risks of undermining the aims of this Directive.
Justification
You are referred to the justification to the proposed new Article 53a to which this recital relates.
Amendment 9 RECITAL 39 A (new)
	(39a) The European Union legislature is intent on producing more coherent texts in a more manageable number of legislative instruments. Consequently, the regulatory content of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, the form of legislation chosen at the time in view of time constraints, should be brought within the scope of the present Directive and the Regulation itself should be repealed;
Justification
This text, and the inclusion of a new Article 39a required by Amendment 1, emphasises the European Parliament’s political will, at first reading, to achieve the objective of creating a more coherent and manageable number of legislative instruments. Consequently, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 should be repealed. The Commission and the Council are requested to ensure that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 which they intend to be retained are incorporated in the present directive by the second reading.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1
This Directive lays down the rules in accordance with which Member States shall distinguish the following four categories of payment service provider:	This Directive lays down the rules in accordance with which Member States shall distinguish four categories of payment service providers, as defined in Article 4.
(a) credit institutions within the meaning of Directive 2000/12/EC;	This Directive also lays down rules concerning transparency conditions, and the respective rights and obligations of users and providers, in relation to the provision of payment services as a regular occupation or business activity.
(b) electronic money institutions within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC;
(c) post office giro institutions, as referred to in the second indent of Article 2(3) of Directive 2000/12/EC, which are entitled under national or Community law to provide payment services;
(d) other natural or legal persons who have been granted authorisation in accordance with Article 6 of this Directive to provide and execute payment services throughout the Community, hereinafter “payment institutions”.
This Directive also lays down rules concerning transparency conditions, and the respective rights and obligations of users and providers, in relation to the provision of payment services as a regular occupation or business activity.
Central banks acting as monetary authorities and public authorities which provide payment services are not considered to be payment service providers.
Justification
For reasons of legal clarity, it is better that the four categories of payment service providers be covered by a single definition included in Article 4. The exemption of central banks should rather be placed in Article 2(1).
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. This Directive shall apply only to business activities, listed in the Annex, consisting in the execution of payment transactions on behalf of a natural or legal person, hereinafter “payment services”, where at least one of the payment service providers is located in the Community.	1. This Directive shall apply only to business activities, listed in the Annex, consisting in the execution of payment transactions on behalf of a natural or legal person, hereinafter “payment services”, where both of the payment service providers are located in the Community. This Directive shall not apply to payment services provided by central banks.
Justification
The inclusion of a third-country dimension is inappropriate: due to a lack of direct relevance for the payment service provider located in such a third country, its compliance with the obligations established by the Directive cannot be guaranteed in the same way as for payments within the European Union. The modified exemption of all activities performed by central banks is moved from Article 1 of the proposal.
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 2, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Save where otherwise provided, this Directive shall apply to payment services made in any currency.	2. This Directive shall apply to payment services made in the currencies of the Member States.
Justification
The scope should be limited to payments in euro and other EU currencies.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 3, TITLE
Negative scope	Exemptions
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 A (new)
	(3a) “payment service provider” means a provider of services used by payers and payees of funds in execution of underlying legal transactions. Their remit is confined, unless expressly agreed otherwise, to the actual provision of services and does not change either the legal relationship of payment service users to each other or the demarcation of their respective obligations in connection with the underlying transaction as regards time, place, scope and type of liability in relation to the service performed.
Justification
The amendment seeks to clarify the general principle that the fact that the payment service provider is instructed to handle transactions which may, or may not, be of a contractual nature can neither be the decisive factor in determining, nor influence, the distribution of obligations between payment service users. That is primarily a function of the (contractual) freedom of the parties concerned.
Amendment 15 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 B (new)
	(3b) “registered office” means the registered office of an undertaking, where and in so far as that undertaking operates as a payment service provider; in addition to the registered place of principal representation, it may be any place at which the undertaking maintains a subsidiary, branch, outside agency, acceptance point or local office, and any place at which a representative of the undertaking maintains his business address under the undertaking’s name as its representative.
Justification
The registered office issue (of an enterprise) is not clearly defined.
Amendment 16 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 C (new)
	(3c) (i) credit institutions within the meaning of Directive 2000/12/EC;
	(ii) electronic money institutions within the meaning of Directive 2000/46/EC;
	(iii) post office giro institutions, as referred to in Article 2(3) of Directive 2000/12/EC, which are authorised to perform payment services under domestic or Community law;
	(iv) without prejudice to Article 21, payment institutions which are subject to the same requirements, particularly as regards the provision of securities, in respect of the payment transactions covered by this Directive, in so far as those obligations are also incumbent on the service providers referred to in points (i) and (ii) in respect of such payment transactions.
Justification
This amendment is consequential on the deletion of the definitions set out in Article 1. It would be advisable, under point (d), to include a general reference to Article 21, which provides for exceptions from the definition of payment institutions.
Amendment 17 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 D (new)
	(3d) “open payment system” means a payment system in which the payer and the payee generally have different payment service providers, both operating within the same payment system, provided that any proprietary payment system which has licensed its intellectual property for use by third parties or agents shall not constitute an open payment system by virtue of such licensing activity;
Justification
The proposed text focusing Article 23 specifically on ‘open’ payment systems does not include a definition of ‘open payment system’. A definition therefore needs to be provided. The original text of Article 23 was designed with the dominant ‘open’ payment systems in mind – but not proprietary ‘closed loop’ systems (for which this the proposal’s Article 23 text is disproportionate and inappropriate).
Amendment 18 ARTICLE 4, POINT 3 E (new)
	(3e) “proprietary payment system” means a payment system in which unaffiliated third parties either do not participate or participate but neither own, govern or control the system nor have contractual privity inter se in relation to the system;
Justification
A definition of ‘proprietary or closed payment system’ in line with the amendments focusing Article 23 on ‘open payment systems’ and the definition of ‘open payment system’ proposed for Article 4 should be inserted.
Amendment 19 ARTICLE 4, POINT 6 A (new)
	(6a) “framework contract” means a payment service agreement characterised by the fact that it commits a payment service provider to the future execution of individual or successive payment transactions on the order of the payer;
Justification
Vide amendment on Article 29.
Amendment 20 ARTICLE 4, POINT 11 A (new)
	(11a) “banking day” means a day on which the payment service provider of the payer involved in the payment transaction and the payment service provider of the payee concerned in the transaction are regularly open for business with customers;
Justification
This amendment aims to spell out the meaning of the term ‘banking day’.
Amendment 21 ARTICLE 4, POINT 11 B (new)
	(11b) “execution time” means the time that elapses between acceptance of a payment order and the time when the sum to be paid in accordance with the payment order is made available to the payee’s payment services provider;
Justification
This amendment aims to ensure greater precision.
Amendment 22 ARTICLE 23, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 AND SUBPARAGRAPH 2, INTRODUCTORY WORDING
1. Member States shall ensure that rules on access to and operation of payment systems shall be objective and proportionate and shall not inhibit access more than is necessary to safeguard against specific risks and to protect the financial safety of the payment system.	1. Member States shall ensure that rules on access to and operation of open payment systems shall be objective and proportionate and shall not inhibit access more than is necessary to safeguard against specific risks and to protect the financial safety of the payment system.
Payment systems may not impose any of the following requirements:	Open payment systems may not impose any of the following requirements:
Justification
Article 23 risks being interpreted as compelling payment systems to allow banks and other payment institutions access to their systems on the basis of non-discriminatory criteria. The text may have been designed with the dominant ‘open loop’ or 4-party payment systems in mind – but not proprietary ‘closed loop’ systems (for which this Article is disproportionate and inappropriate).
Amendment 23 ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall require that the payment service provider is to communicate to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium available and accessible to him the conditions in accordance with Article 26.	1. Member States shall require that the payment service provider is to make available to the payment service user on paper or on another durable medium available and accessible to him the conditions in accordance with Article 26.
Justification
The wording is changed to ‘make available to’, as in Article 3 of Directive 97/5/EC and Article 4 of Regulation 2560/2001, and should apply throughout the whole directive (Articles 27, 28, 30, 36 and 37).
Amendment 24 ARTICLE 29
This Chapter applies to payment transactions covered by a payment service agreement characterised by the fact that it commits a payment service provider to execute in the future successive payment transactions or individual payment transactions on the order of the payer if the agreed conditions are met. That agreement, hereinafter “framework contract”, may contain the obligations and conditions for setting up a payment account;	This Chapter applies to payment transactions covered by a framework contract, which may contain the obligations and conditions for setting up a payment account.
Justification
The definition of ‘framework contract’ should be moved from Article 29 to the definitions article and used consistently throughout the proposed directive, replacing the concept of ‘framework agreement’ contained in recital 18 and Articles 32-33.
Amendment 25 ARTICLE 32
Article 32 Information to be provided after entry into force	deleted
After the entry into force of a framework agreement, the payment service provider shall make available to a payment service user in an easily accessible manner all the conditions specified in Article 31(1).
In addition and where relevant, the payment service provider shall make available in the same way further information on duties and rights under Community and national legislation directly relating to the execution of specific payment transactions, such as reporting obligations, declarations and tax issues. This shall apply only in so far as the payment service provider has received, or could reasonably be expected to have received, notification of those duties and rights.
Justification
The first paragraph of this article duplicates the provisions concerning the obligation to provide information. The obligation to provide comprehensive information about legal and tax requirements laid down in the second paragraph concerns matters outside payment service providers’ sphere of responsibilities. Both paragraphs should, therefore, be deleted.
Amendment 26 ARTICLE 33, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Any change in the contractual conditions communicated to the payment service user pursuant to Article 31(1) shall be proposed by the payment service provider in the same way as provided for in Articles 30(1) and 31(2) and not less than one month before the date of its proposed application.	1. Any change affecting the payment service user in the contractual conditions communicated to him pursuant to Article 31(1) shall be made available by the payment service provider in the way provided for in the contract and not less than one month before the date of its proposed application
Justification
The aim is to simplify the wording.
Amendment 27 ARTICLE 34
1. The termination of a framework contract which has been concluded for a period of 12 months or more or for an indefinite period shall be free of charges for the payment service user.	A framework contract which has been concluded for a period of 12 months or more or for an indefinite period may be terminated free of charges for the payment service user after 12 months subject to a period of notice which may not exceed one month.
Fees for payment services charged on a regular basis shall be payable only proportionally up to the termination of the contract. If such fees are paid in advance, they shall be reimbursed proportionally.	Fees for payment services charged on a regular basis shall be payable only proportionally up to the termination of the contract. If such fees are paid in advance, they shall be reimbursed proportionally.
2. Save where the payment service provider and the payment service user have explicitly agreed on a period of notice for the termination of a framework contract, framework contracts may be terminated immediately.
The period of notice may not exceed one month.
Justification
The amendment seeks to make the wording more precise.
Amendment 28 ARTICLE 39 A (new)
	Article 39a
	Provisions relating to cross-border payments in euro
	1. Charges for cross-border payments shall be the same as charges for payments made in euro within a Member State, in accordance with the following paragraphs.
	2. This provision shall apply equally to charges relating to incoming payments and to charges relating to outgoing payments.
	3. The rules on cross-border payments in euro laid down in Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 shall be retained to the extent that they are still necessary in the light of the present Directive.
	4. Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 shall be repealed with effect from the date specified in Article 85(1).
Justification
This text, and the inclusion of a new Article 39a required by Amendment 1, emphasises the European Parliament’s political will, at first reading, to achieve the objective of creating a more coherent and manageable number of legislative instruments. Consequently, Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 should be repealed. The Commission and the Council are requested to ensure that the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 which they intend to be retained are incorporated in the present directive by the second reading.
Amendment 29 ARTICLE 41, PARAGRAPH 2
Consent shall consist in an explicit authorisation for the payment service provider to effect a payment transaction or a series of transactions.	Consent shall consist in an authorisation for the payment service provider to effect a payment transaction or a series of transactions.
Justification
The ‘explicit’ consent would be an excessive restriction, as already under general principles pertaining to civil law, such consent may also be given in a tacit or implicit form or it may be granted by means of previously agreed authorisation fiction.
Amendment 30 ARTICLE 42, TITLE
Transmission of consent	Principle of transmission of consent
Justification
This amendment should be seen in conjunction with the amendment for a proposed new Article 53 a ; you are referred to the relevant justification.
Amendment 31 ARTICLE 47, PARAGRAPH 1, POINT (A)
(a) to make sure that the personalised security features of a payment verification instrument are not accessible to parties other than the holder of the payment verification instrument;	(a) to make sure, within his own sphere of responsibility, that the personalised security features of a payment verification instrument are not accessible to parties other than the holder of the payment verification instrument;
Justification
To clarify that the payment service provider can only take such measures within his own field. He is, however, responsible for matters falling within his own purview (see Article 46).
Amendment 32 ARTICLE 48, PARAGRAPH 2
2. If, on production of the evidence required under paragraph 1, the payment service user continues to deny having authorised the payment transaction, he shall provide factual information or elements to allow the presumption that he could not have authorised the payment transaction and that he did not act fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to the obligations incumbent upon him under Article 46(b).	2. If, on production of the evidence required under paragraph 1, the payment service user continues to deny having authorised the payment transaction, he shall provide factual information or elements to prove that he could not have authorised the payment transaction and that he did not act fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to the obligations incumbent upon him under Article 46(b).
Justification
The proposed provision to allow a ‘presumption’ would shift the burden of proof to payment service providers and call into question the current system of documentary evidence for transactions using PIN numbers. That could lead to over-careless use of the payment verification instrument and jeopardise the effectiveness and operability of this method of payment to the detriment of all.
Amendment 33 ARTICLE 48, PARAGRAPH 3
3. For the purposes of rebutting the presumption referred to in paragraph 2, the use of a payment verification instrument recorded by the payment service provider shall not, of itself, be sufficient to establish either that the payment was authorised by the payment service user or that the payment service user acted fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to his obligations under Article 46.	3. The use of a payment verification instrument recorded by the payment service provider shall not, of itself, be sufficient to establish either that the payment was authorised by the payment service user or that the payment service user acted fraudulently or with gross negligence with regard to his obligations under Article 46.
Justification
Consequential on the amendment to Article 48(2).
Amendment 34 ARTICLE 50, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. The payment service user shall bear the loss, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment verification instrument and occurring before he has fulfilled his obligation to notify his payment service provider under Article 46(b).	1. The payment service user shall bear the loss, up to a maximum of EUR 150, resulting from the use of a lost or stolen payment verification instrument and occurring before he has fulfilled his obligation to notify his payment service provider under Article 46(b), provided he did not act fraudulently or with gross negligence, particularly by disregarding his obligations to exercise due care under Article 46.
Justification
The amendment seeks to establish that restricted liability applies only in cases where the user did not act fraudulently or with gross negligence.
Amendment 35 ARTICLE 53 A (new)
	Article 53a
	Exemption from the principle of transmission of consent
	1. The payer may authorise the payee, for the purpose of making a series of regular payments or a single payment, to deduct a sum from a designated account with his payment service provider by direct debit, releasing the payee from the obligation to transmit consent beforehand to his payment service provider. This shall not affect any other requirements to transmit information to the payer, particularly as regards the reasons for, type, amount and purpose of the payment.
	2. This exemption can only be granted if the payee:
	– accords the payer the right to recall the payment, even without providing reasons, by a simple declaration to his own payment service provider within at least six weeks of receiving notification of the payment transaction,
	– ensures, directly or through his payment service provider, that the sum originally debited is immediately credited in full to the payer’s account, without the need for any further action by the latter,
	– indemnifies the payer against any costs in connection with recalling the payment, unless that action disregards the obligations imposed on the payer by the underlying legal relationship and, consequently, the payee can assert his right in turn to the reimbursement of costs.
Justification
The amendment seeks to ensure the directive covers the direct debit procedure which is practised to a great extent in a few Member States (for example in Germany, where there are around six billion such transactions a year, mainly for the payment of small and very small sums at regular intervals). This procedure is regarded by payment service providers and users alike as very efficient, reliable and inexpensive and, from the user’s point of view, offers a very low risk of the system being abused, with any resulting losses being met by the payment service provider.
The proposed provisions should ensure that this form of payment instrument can continue to be used in various Member States to ensure users are not faced with the prospect of being obliged to use more complicated and costly procedures.
Amendment 36 ARTICLE 59, PARAGRAPH 1
This Section shall apply only if the payment service providers of both the payer and the payee are located in the Community.	This Section shall apply only if the payment is made in euro.
Justification
This amendment is proposed together with the amendment to Article 2, restricting the scope of the whole Directive to payments within the Community, and the scope of provisions on execution time (vide also amendment to Recital 28) to the euro zone.
Amendment 37 ARTICLE 60
1. Member States shall require the payer’s payment service provider to ensure that, after the point in time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first working day following the point in time of acceptance. However, up to 1 January 2010, a payer and his payment service provider may agree on a period no longer than three days.	1. Member States shall require the payer’s payment service provider to ensure, from 1 January 2012 onwards, that, after the point in time of acceptance, the amount ordered is credited to the payee’s payment account at the latest at the end of the first banking day following the point in time of acceptance.
2. Where the transaction is initiated by the payer and includes a currency conversion, the payer and his payment service provider may provide otherwise by explicit agreement.	2. Where the transaction is initiated by the payer and includes a currency conversion, the time required for the currency conversion shall not be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the execution time.
	2a. Where this time for the currency conversion requires more than one banking day, the payer and his payment service provider may provide otherwise by explicit agreement.
Justification
This amendment seeks to maintain the execution time proposed by the Commission (within one working day of the date of transaction). Of course the execution time will not become a legal requirement until 1 January 2012.
However, in order to give customers greater choice and ensure that small providers of services which do not have their own direct access to a payment system are not automatically excluded from the market, it should continue to be possible for other arrangements to be made in individual cases by mutual agreement.
Amendment 38 ARTICLE 67, PARAGRAPH 1
1. After the point in time of acceptance in accordance with Article 54(1), a payment service provider shall be strictly liable for the non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction made in accordance with Section 1.	1. After the point in time of acceptance in accordance with Article 54(1), a payment service provider shall be liable for the non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction made in accordance with Section 1.
In addition, the payment service provider shall be strictly liable for any charges, and for any interest charged to the payment service user as a consequence of the non execution or defective execution of the payment transaction.	In addition, the payment service provider shall be liable for any charges, and for any interest charged to the payment service user as a consequence of the non execution or defective execution of the payment transaction.
Justification
Strict liability for non-execution or defective execution of a payment transaction would infringe the applicable principles of liability in civil law in all Member States.
Amendment 39 ARTICLE 67, PARAGRAPH 2
2. If the payment service user claims that a payment order has not been accurately executed, the payment service provider shall show, without prejudice to factual elements produced by the payment service user, that the payment order was accurately recorded, executed and entered in the accounts.	2. If the payment service user claims that a payment order has not been accurately executed, the payment service provider shall show, without prejudice to factual elements produced by the payment service user, that the payment order was accurately recorded, executed and entered in the accounts. If the execution of the payment transaction was not defective, the payment service user shall bear the cost involved, in so far as this is provided for in the framework contract.
Justification
The imposition of the burden of proof on the service provider under Article 67(2) should be approved on condition that, in the case of payments executed correctly, service users must bear the resulting costs.
Amendment 40 ARTICLE 68
Article 68	deleted
Transfers to third countries
In cases where the payment service provider of the payee is not located in a Member State, the payment service provider of the payer shall be liable for the execution of the payment transactions only until the funds reach the payee’s payment service provider.
Justification
Following the amendment to Article 2(1) the scope of this Directive is limited to the EU.
Amendment 41 ARTICLE 78, TITLE
Full harmonisation, mutual recognition and mandatory nature of the Directive	Full harmonisation and mutual recognition
Justification
The legal effect of the Directive is obvious on the basis of the Treaties and ECJ jurisprudence.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC
References	COM(2005)0603 – C6 0411/2005 – 2005/0245(COD)
Committee responsible	ECON
Opinion by   Date announced in plenary	JURI 17.1.2006
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Rainer Wieland 30.1.2006
Previous drafts(wo)man
Discussed in committee	3.5.2006		12.6.2006
Date adopted	13.7.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	20 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Maria Berger, Carlo Casini, Monica Frassoni, Giuseppe Gargani, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Katalin Lévai, Hans-Peter Mayer, Aloyzas Sakalas, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Daniel Strož, Diana Wallis, Rainer Wieland, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Hiltrud Breyer, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Michel Rocard
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Sharon Bowles, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Peter Liese, Miroslav Mikolášik
Comments (available in one language only)	...

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

PROCEDURE

Title		Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2000/12/EC and 2002/65/EC
References		COM(2005)0603 – C6 0411/2005 – 2005/0245(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament		1.12.2005
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary		ECON 17.1.2006
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary		IMCO 17.1.2006		JURI 17.1.2005
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision
Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed		Jean-Paul Gauzès 13.12.2005
Previous rapporteur(s)
Simplified procedure – date of decision
Legal basis disputed
Financial endowment amended
European Economic and Social Committee consulted – date of decision in plenary
Committee of the Regions consulted – date of decision in plenary
Discussed in committee		13.3.2006	18.4.2006		25.4.2006		30.5.2006		11.7.2006
Date adopted		12.9.2006
Result of final vote	+ – 0	38 0 1
Members present for the final vote		Zsolt László Becsey, Pervenche Berès, Sharon Bowles, Udo Bullmann, Ieke van den Burg, David Casa, Jan Christian Ehler, Jonathan Evans, Elisa Ferreira, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Donata Maria Assunta Gottardi, Benoît Hamon, Gunnar Hökmark, Karsten Friedrich Hoppenstedt, Ian Hudghton, Sophia in 't Veld, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Wolf Klinz, Christoph Konrad, Kurt Joachim Lauk, Astrid Lulling, Cristobal Montoro Romero, Joseph Muscat, John Purvis, Alexander Radwan, Bernhard Rapkay, Karin Riis-Jørgensen, Dariusz Rosati, Eoin Ryan, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Manuel António dos Santos, Ivo Strejček, Sahra Wagenknecht
Substitute(s) present for the final vote		Mia De Vits, Satu Hassi, Thomas Mann, Giovanni Pittella, Corien Wortmann-Kool
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled		20.9.2006
Comments (available in one language only)