Response to consultation on Guidelines aimed at standardisation of fee terminology for payment accounts in the EU
Go back
Moreover, an example is given as follows: “Electronic funds transfer under SEPA rules should be considered one service, even though it might attract different fees – for example, if a transfer is executed between accounts of the same as opposed to between accounts of different service providers”.
However, it is stated in the Annex that “For electronic fund transfers, please indicate in Column 5 if there is a differentiation of fees charged according to the identity of the receiving payment service provider” (footnote 11). In this regard, footnote 9 states: “Please indicate if fees are differentiated for other channels using “other” in column 6. This applies for branch or ATM withdrawals. Please indicate also if there are different charges for ATMs of the same network and other network, if that is the case in your market”.
Electronic funds transfers in SEPA (i.e. credit transfers and direct debits) are already regulated by EC Regulations 924/2009 and 260/2012 (complemented by Regulation 284/2014). There is no need to add to the dispositions of these Regulations.
Finally, we believe that “Currency exchange services” shouldn’t be included as an example of services under type 4, “International payments and Foreign Currency related services” (page 28). In this regard, we consider that these services aren’t into the scope of the definition of “services linked to the payment account” regulated in Directive 2014/92/EU. This Directive states that payment services should be understood as defined in point (3) of article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, which in turn refers to its Annex. As far as currency exchange services are not explicitly listed in the Annex and are not implicitly included in services “required for” (Directive 2007/64/EC) nor “related to” (Directive 2014/92/EU) operating a payment account, we consider that they don’t fall into the scope of the definition applicable to Directive 2014/92/EU. In this sense, Directive 2007/64/EC refers to “foreign exchange services” in article 16, which starts as follows: “Apart from the provision of payment services listed in the Annex”.
Therefore, ESBG strongly believes that currency exchange services shouldn’t be proposed as an example of services linked to a payment account.
- No quantifiable justification is provided that would allow to substantiate the conclusion that Option A1 would be most beneficial for the whole economy. In the absence of such evidence ESBG prefers Option A2. National competent authorities should be allowed to take into consideration additional parameters when so required to adequately reflect national market conditions.
- With respect to data collection, again national competent authorities should have the right to decide which source(s) is/are reliable, hence ESBG prefers Option B2.
- As inferred earlier in this response, demand for cross-border product standardisation is quite marginal, hence ESBG prefers Option C1.
Question 2: Are there any additional requirements that you would suggest adding?
The Guidelines establish in paragraph 10 that “Competent authorities should consider the service provided as a single service, irrespective of the potential for providers to differentiate costs by channels of usage, or by the identity of the receiving payment service provider”.Moreover, an example is given as follows: “Electronic funds transfer under SEPA rules should be considered one service, even though it might attract different fees – for example, if a transfer is executed between accounts of the same as opposed to between accounts of different service providers”.
However, it is stated in the Annex that “For electronic fund transfers, please indicate in Column 5 if there is a differentiation of fees charged according to the identity of the receiving payment service provider” (footnote 11). In this regard, footnote 9 states: “Please indicate if fees are differentiated for other channels using “other” in column 6. This applies for branch or ATM withdrawals. Please indicate also if there are different charges for ATMs of the same network and other network, if that is the case in your market”.
Electronic funds transfers in SEPA (i.e. credit transfers and direct debits) are already regulated by EC Regulations 924/2009 and 260/2012 (complemented by Regulation 284/2014). There is no need to add to the dispositions of these Regulations.
Finally, we believe that “Currency exchange services” shouldn’t be included as an example of services under type 4, “International payments and Foreign Currency related services” (page 28). In this regard, we consider that these services aren’t into the scope of the definition of “services linked to the payment account” regulated in Directive 2014/92/EU. This Directive states that payment services should be understood as defined in point (3) of article 4 of Directive 2007/64/EC, which in turn refers to its Annex. As far as currency exchange services are not explicitly listed in the Annex and are not implicitly included in services “required for” (Directive 2007/64/EC) nor “related to” (Directive 2014/92/EU) operating a payment account, we consider that they don’t fall into the scope of the definition applicable to Directive 2014/92/EU. In this sense, Directive 2007/64/EC refers to “foreign exchange services” in article 16, which starts as follows: “Apart from the provision of payment services listed in the Annex”.
Therefore, ESBG strongly believes that currency exchange services shouldn’t be proposed as an example of services linked to a payment account.
Question 3: Do you agree with the analysis of the cost and benefit impact of the guidelines?
In ESBG’s opinion, the impact analysis could have been more in depth and the conclusions do not appear to be fully justified. Estimated costs would be weak, as they are limited only to time spent, and in accordance with the estimations established in the 2013 Commission study, ‘Quantification of the economic impacts of EU action to improve fee transparency, comparability and mobility in the Internal Market for personal payment accounts’- No quantifiable justification is provided that would allow to substantiate the conclusion that Option A1 would be most beneficial for the whole economy. In the absence of such evidence ESBG prefers Option A2. National competent authorities should be allowed to take into consideration additional parameters when so required to adequately reflect national market conditions.
- With respect to data collection, again national competent authorities should have the right to decide which source(s) is/are reliable, hence ESBG prefers Option B2.
- As inferred earlier in this response, demand for cross-border product standardisation is quite marginal, hence ESBG prefers Option C1.
Question 4: Please provide any evidence or data that would further inform the analysis of the likely cost and benefit impacts of the proposals.
We do not have further data available in this context.Upload files
EBA CP2014 34_ESBG response.pdf
(182.59 KB)