EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 16.12.2010 
SEC(2010) 1585 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
1st implementation report 
on the SEPA Roadmap for 2009–2012 
  
Accompanying document to the 
  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
establishing technical requirements for credit  transfers and direct debits in euros and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 
 
(Text with EEA relevance) 
SEC(2010) 1583 final 
 SEC(2010) 1584 final 
 COM(2010) 775 final 
 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
1st implementation report 
on the SEPA Roadmap for 2009–2012 
  
Accompanying document to the 
  
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PA RLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
establishing technical requirements for cred it transfers and direct debits in euros and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of th e European Parliament and of the Council 
 
(Text with EEA relevance) 
1. I
NTRODUCTION  
On 10 September 2009, the European Co mmission published its Communication Completing 
SEPA: a Roadmap for 2009–20121. 
The SEPA Roadmap details the work that still has to be accomplished in order to successfully 
reap the full benefits of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA)2. The SEPA project is fully in 
line with the Europe 2020 strategy which aims at  a smarter economy where prosperity results 
from innovation and from more effi cient use of available resources. 
The key reason that led the European Commission to establish the SEPA Roadmap remains 
valid: uncertainty still prevails  on the payment supply and demand side as regards the future 
of SEPA, resulting in a slow pace of migration to SEPA products. This uncertainty is 
exacerbated by the aftermath of the financial crisis. The current adverse economic climate 
induces a very cautious approach to further SEPA investments by some payment service 
providers (mostly banks) and by high-volume pa yment users (mainly businesses and public 
administrations). 
Despite repeated calls for swift migration from  EU institutions and continuous political 
support for the SEPA project, actual migration from existing national payment instruments to 
the core SEPA payment instruments is still la gging behind expectations and mainly limited to 
cross-border transactions. 
Both the European Parliament in a recent Resolution3 and the ECOFIN Council in its 
December 2009 conclusions4 therefore specifically welcomed the initiative of the SEPA 
Roadmap. 
                                                 
1 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/pay ments/docs/sepa/com_2009_471_en.pdf  
2 In geographical terms, SEPA currently comprise s the 27 EU Member States, Iceland, Liechtenstein, 
Norway, Switzerland and Monaco. 
3 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/111670.pdf  
 
EN 3   EN The SEPA Roadmap commits th e Commission to closely mon itor its implementation by all 
identified stakeholders and publish regular progress reports. This fi rst report contains 
an assessment of the progress, direction and results achieved since the publication of the SEPA Roadmap. It and also pr ovides a detailed breakdown of th e state of play concerning the 
separate action points with  potential follow-up actions. 
2. P
RIORITY 1: FOSTER MIGRATION  
Migration is defined as the transition period during which ne w SEPA instruments and old 
(legacy) payment instruments co -exist in the market. This is currently the case for credit 
transfers and direct debits since the SEPA cred it transfer (SCT) and SEPA direct debit (SDD) 
schemes have been launched by the European Payments Council (EPC) on 28 January 2008 and 2 November 2009 respectively. 
2.1. An active role for public authorities 
Public administrations (PA) make 20–25 % of all electronic payments in the EU. They 
therefore have a crucial role to play in the migration pro cess to SEPA products, especially for 
credit transfers and direct debits.  
Due to the significant number of PA in each Me mber State, migration can be organised much 
more effectively if it takes place in a c oordinated and synchronised matter. The ECOFIN 
Council stressed the need for such coordination in the form of a common, national migration 
plan for all PA. Currently, such a plan has on ly been drawn up in seven euro area Member 
States
5. 
Results of the recent Commission services survey indicate that actual migration by PA to the 
SCT schemes remains very slow. In February 2010, the SCT migration rate6 of all euro area 
PA participating in the survey stood at onl y 2.5 % which is significantly below the overall 
SCT rate for the euro area (6.2 %) in the same reporting period. Some Member States7 have 
however mentioned specific high-volume PA wh ich will migrate a significant share of their 
transaction volume to SCT by end 2010. Migrati on to SDD had practically not taken place 
among PA as of February 2010. This  needs to be seen in the c ontext of the relatively short 
time span elapsed since the launch of the SDD scheme (November 2009) and the lesser relevance of direct debits as a payment instrument used by PA. 
Migration by European instituti ons, especially by the Commissi on (being by far the institution 
with the highest payment volume), is more advanced. As of June 2010, almost all credit transfers undertaken by the Co mmission in the SEPA countries  were executed as SCT with 
the exception of payments in one Member State
8 for which they are expected to fully migrate 
in September 2010. The European Central Ba nk (ECB) has already fully migrated its 
payments to SCT in January 2008. The Europ ean institutions generally do not use direct 
debits as payment instruments. 
                                                                                                                                                         
4 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc .do?pubRef=-//EP// TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-
0057+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN  
5 Belgium, France, Italy, Cypr us, Malta, Austria and Slovenia. 
6 Share of SCT transactions amon g all credit transfers undertaken. 
7 Belgium, Germany, France and Portugal. 
8 Netherlands 
 
EN 4   EN Table 1:  Action items – SEPA migrati on in public administrations 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment9 Follow up 
Design national 
migration plans for public administrations Member States October 2009 Completed in 7 
Member States only – Migration plan in 
one additional Member State expected in remainder of 2010 
Migration of national public administrations to SEPA standards, products and services Member States End-2010 SCT: 2.5% 
migration rate (February 2010) SDD: has practically not yet taken place – On the basis of 
Member States information, SCT rate expected to rise significantly by end 2010 
Migration of European institutions to SEPA standards, products and services Commission/ 
other European Institutions June 2010 Migration to SCT 
in Commission almost completed 100 % SCT rate for ECB + Commission: 
payments in one remaining Member State (NL) to migrate in September 2010 
2.2. Efficient migration monitoring 
Thorough monitoring of the SEPA migration pro cess is crucial in order to anticipate and 
remedy potential problems. For this purpo se, the ECOFIN Council conclusions of 
22 January 200810 invited the Commission in cooperation with the ECB to provide an Annual 
Progress Report on the state of SEPA migration.  The last Progress Report has been published 
in December 200911. The publication of the 2010 Progre ss Report is expected by end 2010. 
Furthermore, the Eurosystem prepares its ow n SEPA Progress Reports . Six Progress reports 
have been published to date – the last one in November 200812. A forthcoming 7th Progress 
Report is currently  under preparation. 
Actual migration to SEPA instruments is m onitored by the ECB and the respective indicators 
are published on the ECB website13. These include euro area SCT and SDD rates on 
a monthly basis, SCT rates in individual Memb er States on a bi-annual basis, and EMV14 
related payment card indicators on a quarterly basis. 
                                                 
9 9 Action completed  
+ (Some) progress achieved  
– Progress not satisfactory 
10 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/98276.pdf  
11 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/docs/sepa/progress_report_2009_en.pdf  
12
 http://www.ecb.int/ pub/pdf/other/singleeuropaymentsar ea200811en.pdf?e aca1262fbf37b7f0fd1
16c37196ce1b  
13 http://www.ecb.int/paym/sepa/about/indicators/html/index.en.html  
14 The standard ensuring interoperability between the chips on payment cards and point-of-sale terminals 
or ATMs. The acronym EMV represents the three organisations originally developing the standard – 
Europay, MasterCard and VISA. 
 
EN 5   EN To address the particular importance of migr ation to SEPA by public administrations (PA), 
the Commission services undertake surveys among PA in all Member States. The results of 
these surveys are analysed and published in a sc oreboard. Two scoreboards have already been 
published in 200915. The results of the second scoreboard have been updated in the context of 
the 2009 Progress Report, and a new scoreboard is to be published by October 2010. 
One of the most important aspects of migrati on to SEPA is its impact on consumers, in 
particular for the pricing of payment serv ices. For this purpose, the Commission has 
undertaken a first (pre-SEPA) benchmarking st udy in 2007 which will se rve as a basis for 
comparison with later (post-SE PA) benchmarking studies. The Co mmission plans to initiate 
the first follow-up study once SEPA instrume nts (in particular SCT and SDD) are more 
broadly used. 
Table 2:  Action items – Migration monitoring 
Action Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Annual progress 
report to ECOFIN Council on state of migration Commission in 
cooperation with ECB Forthcoming: 
2010 Last Progress 
Report published in December 2009 9 2010 progress 
report to be published by end of year 
Eurosystem SEPA Progress Reports Eurosystem At regular 
intervals (last report November 2008) Six reports 
published to date 9 7
th Progress Report 
under preparation 
Publication of SEPA indicators ECB Throughout the 
migration phase SCT, SDD and EMV 
indicators published on a regular basis 9 Ongoing 
Publication of a 
biannual scoreboard on public administrations migration Commission From 2009 
during the migration phase Two scoreboards 
published on Commission website 9 Next scoreboard to 
be published by October 2010 
2nd SEPA 
benchmarking study Commission Mid-2011 Critical mass / 
maturity of SEPA instruments required for study to be meaningful - Study postponed 
due to slow migration of SCT and SDD instruments 
2.3. Need to agree on an end-date 
A public stakeholder consultation on whether and how deadlines should be set for the 
migration of existing national credit transfers and direct debits to the new SEPA payment 
schemes was organised by the Commission serv ices between June and August 2009 and the 
results published in September 2009 on the Commission services website16. 
                                                 
15 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/sepa/ec_en.htm  
16 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/docs/sepa/feedback_migration-2009_09_29_en.pdf  
 
EN 6   EN Furthermore, discussions and exchanges of opinions were held between September 2009 and 
June 2010 with Member States, financial institu tions, consumer organisations and other social 
and economic partners. 
The ECB, the Council and the European Parlia ment have continued to show their strong 
support for this initiative. On 2 December 2009, the ECOFIN Council issued conclusions on 
SEPA, stating the following: "The Council (…) CONSIDERS that establishing definitive end-
dates for SDD and SCT migration would provid e the clarity and the incentive needed by the 
market, ensuring that the substantial benefits of  SEPA are rapidly achieved and that the high 
costs of running both legacy and SEPA products in parallel can be eliminated (…) INVITES 
therefore the Commission, in collaboration with the ECB and in close cooperation with all 
actors concerned, to carry out a thorough assessment  of whether legislati on is needed to set 
binding end-dates for SDD and SCT and to come  up with a legislative proposal should this 
assessment confirm the need for binding end-dates." 
Similarly, the European Parliament adopt ed on 10 March 2010 a second resolution on the 
implementation of SEPA calling "on the Commission  to set a clear, ap propriate and binding 
end-date, which should be no later than 31 December 2012, for migrating to SEPA 
instruments, after which all payments in eu ros must be made using the SEPA standards"17 
On 2 June 2010, the Commission serv ices published a working paper18 containing some ideas 
on possible approaches to setting a migration end-date and the way forward. The Commission 
plans to adopt a proposal in this context in early autumn 2010. The Impact Assessment for the 
setting of a migration end-date will be pub lished together with the Commission proposal. 
Table 3:  Action items – SEPA migration end-date 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Consultation of 
stakeholders based on consultation paper Commission 3.8.2009 See above 9 Commission 
proposal in early autumn 2010 
Political endorsement ECOFIN Council December 
2009 ECOFIN Conclusions 
on 2.12.2009 9 Commission 
proposal in early autumn 2010 
Completion of impact assessment work Commission February 
2010 Impact Assessment 
work on track 9 Impact 
Assessment to be published together with Commission proposal 
                                                 
17 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc .do?pubRef=-//EP// TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-
0057+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN  
18 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payme nts/docs/sepa/end-date_migration_en.pdf  
 
EN 7   EN 3. PRIORITY 2: RAISE SEPA  AWARENESS AND PROMOTE SEPA  PRODUCTS  
For SEPA to be a success it is indispensable to  ensure that all stakeholders involved in the 
'SEPA changeover' are properly informed. Majo r users, such as corporates and public 
administrations, but also consumers, need to  be aware of the opportunities, benefits and 
challenges of the SEPA project. Certain categories of users such as public administrations and 
companies may need more targeted information so as to better understand and evaluate the impact of SEPA on their internal processes. 
At national level, the effort to both raise SE PA’s awareness and promote SEPA products is 
primarily a task for Payment Service Provi ders which should design and disseminate 
appropriate information on the main characteris tics of SEPA products. Nevertheless, given the 
substantial benefits to society, public authorities also have an  important role to play in 
promoting SEPA. They can do so indirec tly, by leading by example through the early 
adoption of SEPA products and directly by either  launching their own or (co-)financing public 
information/communication campaigns. 
The level and intensity of current SEPA comm unication efforts at nati onal level differ from 
one Member States to another. In some Memb er States, general SEPA awareness is ensured 
by coordinated efforts between the private and public sectors
19, while in many others, SEPA 
communication is entirely left to the private sector20, sometimes in close cooperation with 
national central banks21. Communication activities in most non-euro area Member States are 
linked to the (potential) euro accession. 
National SEPA coordination committees have been set up in all Member St ates to coordinate 
and monitor SEPA implementation as well as to identify the challenges in the SEPA 
migration process. Concerning the level of i nvolvement of end-users in national SEPA 
coordination committees, significan t differences between Member States can be observed. In 
most euro area Member States, end-users ar e present in national SEPA coordination 
committees22, while in some cases national SE PA coordination committees are only 
composed of the banking sector, in close coop eration with national ce ntral banks or State 
Treasuries23. In Slovenia, the participation in th e national SEPA coordination committee is 
entirely left to the banking industry. Outside the euro area,  almost all national SEPA 
coordination committees are composed of th e banking sector, in close cooperation with 
national central banks or Ministries of Finance.  
The Commission has established the EU Foru m of national SEPA Coordination Committees 
to bring together the above mentioned nati onal SEPA Committees. This forum provides 
a useful opportunity for national committees to familiarize themselves w ith the activities of 
their European counterparts, debate issues of  common interest with the EU institutions and 
exchange information and good practices about SEPA migration. The forum meets 
                                                 
19 Belgium, France and Netherlands. 
20 Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Luxe mbourg, Hungary, Austria, Poland and Finland. 
21 Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia. 
22 Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, Ne therlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovakia and Finland. 
23 Germany, Luxembourg and Malta. 
 
EN 8   EN bi-annually and information about each of these meetings is available on the Commission 
services website24. 
At European level, the Commission and the EC B address and will continue to address SEPA 
issues through a variety of channels such as: press releases, public speeches, reports on SEPA 
progress, web-sites, PA surveys25, leaflets26 etc. The European Payments Council (EPC) itself 
has a crucial communication role for SEPA and has already undertaken a number of 
communication initiatives. In or der to address the different cat egories of stakeholders, the 
EPC has published a series of SEPA brochures for consumers, businesses, public administrations, merchants, and IT providers
27. The EPC has also developed information 
leaflets for the different SEPA instrument s (SCT, SDD, cards) an d issues a quarterly 
newsletter which is frequently downloaded acros s all market segments and SEPA countries. 
Table 4:  Action items – SEPA awareness and promotion 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Support industry’s efforts 
to create SEPA awareness Member States End-2009 National SEPA 
committees established in all Member States End user involvement not always sufficient + Close monitoring of 
the improvements regarding end user representation in national committees where it is not yet sufficiently ensured and communication activities all Member States 
Complement industry and national SEPA communication with initiatives at EU level Commission, 
ECB, EPC End-2009 Large number of 
communication activities undertaken 9 Ongoing 
Regular meetings of EU 
forum for SEPA national coordination committees Commission From October 
2008 during the migration phase Meetings take 
place bi-annually. Last (4
th) meeting on 
5.5.2010 9 Ongoing 
Next meeting planned for 22.10.2010 
Active marketing of SEPA products appropriate to the different user groups: concrete SEPA product offerings to customers Payment Service 
Providers (PSP) Immediate 
effect for SCT and 1.11.2009 for SDD Need for more 
proactive communication and marketing by PSPs - To be addressed in 
context of setting a migration end-date 
                                                 
24 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/sepa/ec_en.htm  
25 The Commission services intend to prepare a full scoreboard on the mi gration of PA across the EU for 
publication around the summer. 
26 Leaflet on SEPA: What it means for consumers and SMEs;  
Leaflet on PSD: What it means for consumers. 
27 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/  
 
EN 9   EN 4. PRIORITY 3: DESIGN A SOUND LEGAL ENVIRONMENT FOR SEPA  AND STRENGTHEN 
SEPA  COMPLIANCE  
4.1. Complete the legal framework for SEPA 
The transposition process of the Payment Servi ces Directive (PSD) wh ich provides the legal 
foundation of SEPA and had to  be implemented by 1 November 2009 is almost achieved. 
However, there is a small group of Memb er States which lag behind. The Commission 
launched a number of infringeme nt procedures earlier this year. In the context of these 
procedures, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, Roma nia and Sweden received reasoned opinions 
on 3 June 2010 requesting them to fully implement the PSD in their national laws. Since that date, four of the above mentioned Member Stat es (Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Sweden) have 
passed the required national measures for inco rporating the obligations of the PSD into 
domestic law. In Romania, additional legisla tion is still required in order to implement 
a number of provisions, mainly related to the prudential requirements for payment 
institutions. In Poland, all PSD provisions stil l have to be implemented and transposition 
should be completed by end October 2010. 
Almost all Member States, except Germany and the Czech Republic, found a solution to 
ensure the continued legal validity of existing direct debit mandates wh en migrating to SEPA 
direct debit, e.g. during the PSD transpos ition. SDD migration s hould not require the 
re-signature of millions of new mandates. This would be extremely burdensome and costly, especially in Member States wi th high direct debit volumes. 
Table 5:  Action items – Legal framework for SEPA 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Ensure complete, 
consistent and faithful PSD transposition Member States 1.11.2009 25 Member States 
have completed the transposition of PSD Implementation work in Poland and Romania still ongoing + Infringement 
proceedings under Article 258 TFEU ongoing 
Find a solution ensuring continued legal validity of existing direct debit mandates when migrating to SEPA direct debit Member States Solution to be 
put in place by 1.11.2009 25 Member States 
found a solution for the continued legal validity of existing mandates + Ensure that the 
two remaining Member States find a solution 
 
EN 10   EN 4.2. Competition issues 
In accordance with the SEPA Roadmap, the Co mmission services published for consultation 
on 3 November 2009, a working document addressi ng the compatibility of multilateral inter-
bank payments for a possible long-term SDD bus iness model with the EU competition rules28. 
This document complements the provisions of  Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 on cross-border 
payments in the Community29 and the joint statement of the Commission and the ECB of 
24 March 200930. The working document indicated that  a per-transaction multi-lateral 
interchange fee did not seem to be compatible  with the EU competition rules and could not 
properly incentivize the efficient use of th e scheme. However, the working document 
indicated that other arrangements such as a S HARE option or such as a multi-lateral fee for 
error transactions (or 'R-transac tions'), if properly designed, coul d be compatible. Prior to the 
consultation, on 26 June 2009 the EPC plenary meeting had decided not to continue the 
discussion with the Commission on this topic a nd in fact there was no industry-wide common 
response to the consultation. 
Although identified as an action for the EPC in the SEPA Roadmap to be completed by 
November 2012, the EPC has decided not to c ontinue work on designing and implementing a 
long-term SDD business model which is compatible with competition rules. 
Table 6:  Action items – SDD business model 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Provide further clarity as 
to compliance of long-term business models for SDD with EU competition law Commission November 
2009, provided that necessary contributions from relevant market actors have been made Commission 
Working Document published on 3.11.2009 9 No industry-wide 
contribution on working document received. To be assessed whether binding guidance needed by regulatory means 
Design and implementation of long-term business models for SDD in line with competition rules EPC 1.11.2012 EPC sees 
responsibility for this action item with scheme participants – To be assessed 
whether binding guidance needed by regulatory means 
                                                 
28 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/financial_services/SEPA_working_document.pdf  
29 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:266:0011:0018:EN:PDF  
30
 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do ?reference=IP/09/468&format=HTML&aged=0
&language=EN&guiLanguage=en  
 
EN 11   EN 4.3. Compliance issues 
The Eurosystem has published de tailed Terms of Reference (ToR)31 for card schemes and 
infrastructures as well as a set of expectations32 for different stakeholde rs regarding the SEPA 
project. 
In terms of implementing the Eurosystem’s ToR, 13 card schemes33 and 16 clearing and 
settlement infrastructures34 have published SEPA compliance self-assessments on their 
websites. On the basis of an analysis of these self-assessments, the Eurosystem will review the SEPA compliance criteria and ToR for card schemes and infrastructures. 
The expectations for banks and payment institutions published by the Eurosystem were 
intended to provide a benchmark. Payment serv ice providers were invited to assess their 
services against these criteria on a regular basi s and to publish the results. The expectations 
for payment users are meant to show how mi gration to SEPA can be actively promoted, 
providing guidance for implementing SEPA and gi ving an impression of what successful 
SEPA implementation would mean for users, as well as how they could benefit from it. The 
Eurosystem has, however, not specifically foll owed-up on compliance with these expectations 
and has not requested to receive any of the payment user se lf-assessments. It is therefore not 
possible to evaluate the pr ogress on this action item. 
                                                
 
31 See http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/sepa/components/infrastructures/html/tor.en.html  for the Terms of 
reference for the SEPA – compliance of infrastructures and http://www.ecb.int/paym/sepa/pdf/ToR_SEPA_compliant_card_schemes.pdf?1915cf8db5ec194b2c9e9
070ebeb2ff7  for Terms of reference for the SEPA compliance of card schemes. 
32 http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/eur osystemsepaexpectations200903en.pdf  
33 Activa (SI), American Express, Ba ncomat/PagoBancomat (IT), Cartes Bancaires (FR), Euro 6000 (ES), 
Girocard (DE), LaserCard (IE), MasterCard, Multibanco (PT), PIN (NL), Servired (ES), 
Sistema 4B (ES) and Visa. 
34 Bankart, CEC, Dias, EKS, EBA Clearing, Eurogiro , Equens, Iberpay, ICBPI/BI-COMP, KIR, RPS, 
SIA-SSB/BI-COMP, SIBS, STEP.AT, STET and VocaLink. 
 
EN 12   EN Table 7:  Action items – Compliance 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Implement Eurosystem’s SEPA ToRs for  
1) card schemes Card schemes June 2009 13 card schemes 
published self-assessment. Other card schemes intending to become SEPA compliant should conduct and publish their self-assessments. Already published self-assessments should be updated if necessary + Based on the self-
assessments, 
Eurosystem will review the SEPA compliance 
criteria and the ToR. 
Changes to the EPC’s SEPA Cards Framework 
and other relevant 
developments in the card schemes market will be 
taken into account 
2) infrastructures Infrastructu res End-2010 16 clearing and settlement 
infrastructures published self-assessment + Based on the self-
assessments, Eurosystem will review the SEPA compliance criteria and the ToR. Implications of the SDD launch and relevant developments in the CSM market will be taken into account 
5. PRIORITY 4: PROMOTE INNOVATION  
An integrated payments market could create  significant opportuniti es for innovation. In 
particular, SEPA could act as a launching pad for harmonising payments through mobile 
phones (m-payments) or the internet (e-payments) . Similarly, SEPA could facilitate the move 
towards electronic invoicing (e-invoicing). 
In the area of m-payments, the EPC is work ing on a series of documents which aim at 
creating a supportive framework for mobile cont act-less card payments and remote mobile 
payments based on cards and SEPA credit transf ers. A first White Paper on mobile payments 
has been published by the EPC on 2 July 201035. This document focuses on mobile 
contactless card payments. The paper is base d on the underlying assumption that "…mobile 
payments do not modify the role of existing stakeholders during th e actual card payment 
transaction". A second edition of the White Paper concentrating on remote payments is 
planned for publication in the third quarter of  2011. Implementation guidelines for both types 
of mobile payments should be produc ed by the EPC in the 2011–2012 timeframe. 
Regarding e-payments, work at the EPC is still ongoing. As a first deliverable, the EPC plans 
to publish a framework facili tating online payments with a payment-guarantee for web 
retailers through use of the SE PA Credit Transfer by online banking. The objective of this 
framework is to enable currently existing national e-payment schemes based on similar 
                                                 
35 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/documents/EPC492-
09%20White%20Paper%20Mobile%20Payments%20version%202.0%20finalrev.pdf  
 
EN 13   EN technical and business models to interlink at SEPA level. In th e context of this framework, the 
EPC intends only to define mini mum criteria, including legal and security aspects, which 
must be fulfilled by all online ba nking based e-payment scheme in order to meet the criteria 
of the framework. While progress has been made  at technical level, the outstanding issues 
mainly concern the scope, legal form, and gov ernance of such a framework and hence the 
future market structure. 
Both the m- and e-payments frameworks under development by the EPC are limited to 
describing specific technical and business mo dels. They will be voluntary, meaning that 
market players themselves will decide on adherence to a framework. 
As concerns e-invoicing, the independent expe rt group set up by the Commission at the end of 
2007 has completed its work. The final re port of the group has been published on 
30 November 2009 and includes a proposal for a European e-Invoicing framework36. The 
objective of the framework is to facilitate th e uptake of open and in teroperable electronic 
invoicing solutions within the EU. In this context, particular em phasis was put on the needs of 
small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The report was subject to a public consultation, 
a summary of which has been publishe d on the Commission services website37. On the basis 
of the final report and the results of the consultation, the Comm ission plans to adopt 
a Communication on e-invoicing befo re the end of this year. 
Table 8:  Action items – Promoting innovation 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Deliver framework for m-
payments EPC, GSMA 
(association of mobile operators) August 2010 First White 
Paper, focussing on mobile contact-less card payments published on 2.7.2010 + Second version of 
White Paper, focussing on remote payments expected in 2011 Implementation guidelines in 2011–2012 
Deliver framework for e-payments EPC End-2009 Work ongoing but 
further delays to be expected. – First deliverable to 
be finalised (framework facilitating online payments with a payment guarantee) 
Complete European framework for e-invoicing Expert group on 
e-invoicing End-2009 Final report of the 
expert group published. Public consultation completed 9 Commission to 
adopt a Communication on e-invoicing based on final report and consultation 
                                                 
36 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/docs/2009/e-invoicing/report_en.pdf  
37 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/docs/einvoicing/summary_report_en.pdf  
 
EN 14   EN 6. PRIORITY 5: ENSURE NECESSARY STANDARDISATION , INTEROPERABILITY AND 
SECURITY  
Standardisation and interoperabil ity are the technical cornerstone s of the SEPA project. It is 
crucial that all SEPA instruments allow for straight-through processing along the entire 
payment chain while ensuring a high level of security. 
Adherence to the SDD scheme launched in N ovember 2009 is significant with more than 
2 800 banks (representing more than 70 % of th e SEPA payments volume) adhering to the 
scheme. Adherence is expected to increase close to a 100 % by 1 November 2010 when the 
reachability obligation under Regulation 924/2009 comes into force for euro area banks. 
Actual usage of the SDD scheme, however,  currently still remains extremely low. 
While the EPC has developed implementation guidelines for the SCT and both SDD schemes 
across all domains (customer-to-bank and bank -to-customer), payment service providers 
(PSPs) and users are slow in actively comm unicating and implementing these guidelines. 
Standardisation work on the SEPA cards fram ework (SCF) by the EPC is lagging behind. 
This has repercussions on the original time line set by the EPC and the implementation of 
technical specifications for card standards by the cards indus try. The finalisation of the SEPA 
Cards Standardisation Volume and its impl ementation by end-2010 does not seem realistic 
anymore, highlighting the need for an accelerati on of the current work pace in the cards area. 
Table 9:  Action items – Standardisation, interoperability, security 
Actions Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Establish 
consensus on the use of standards for structuring the unstructured remittance information (SCT) EACT, in 
cooperation with users June 2009 Standard for 
formatting contents of unstructured remittance information developed by the EACT
38. + Standard should 
be freely accessible on EACT website without need for prior registration EPC to include necessary references to the standard in the upcoming SCT rulebook release. 
                                                 
38 The standard specifies the elements enabling automated payments processing between business 
partners. Further information at http://www.corporatesepa.com/eact.html . 
 
EN 15   EN Active 
communication and implementation of SCT implementation guidelines in C2B domain
39 PSPs, corporates, 
SMEs, public administrations, consumers, vendors End-2009 Latest version of 
guidelines published by EPC in Oct 2009
40. Currently, 
the use of ISO20022 message standards in the C2B domain is very limited and business customers continue to initiate their payments using legacy formats – On the basis of 
Member States information, use of ISO20022 standards by public administrations is expected to rise during the course of 2010 and 2011 
Active communication and implementation of Core and B2B SDD implementation guidelines in C2B domain PSPs, corporates, 
SMEs, public administrations, consumers, vendors November 2010 Implementation 
guidelines for Core
41 
and B2B42 SDD 
scheme in C2B domain published by EPC in Oct 2009. With SDD take up still being very limited, the use of ISO 20022 message standards by business customers in the C2B domain is zero or very low – Usage of ISO 
20022 expected to increase after 1.11.2010, when reachability obligation under Regulation 924/2009 will come into force for euro area banks 
Definition of SCT and SDD (Core and B2B) implementation guidelines in B2C domain EPC September 2009 Recommendation 
on customer reporting of SCT and SDD published on 15.10.2009
43 9 Action completed 
                                                 
39 The EPC recommended guidelines (a common set of data for exchange between customers and banks) 
established in 2008 are non-mandatory. However, to avoid market partition, all banks should be capable 
of accepting the recommended EPC standards. If not, co rporates will be unable to benefit from SEPA. 
40 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/documents/EPC132-
08%20C2B%20CTIG%20V3.3%20Approved.pdf  
41 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/documents/EPC130-
08%20C2B%20Core%20DDIG%20V3.4%20Approved.pdf  
42 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/documents/EPC130-
08%20C2B%20Core%20DDIG%20V3.4%20Approved.pdf  
43 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/documents/EPC188-
09%20Recommendation%20on%20Customer%20Reporting%20SCT%20and%20SDD.pdf  
 
EN 16   EN Active 
communication and implementation of SCT and SDD implementation guidelines in B2C domain PSPs, corporates, 
SMEs, public administrations, consumers, vendors June 2010 EPC implementation 
guidelines only recommended, not mandated and therefore only used to very limited extent – To be further 
addressed in context of setting a SEPA migration end-date 
Adherence to Core SDD scheme
44 PSPs 1.11.2010 2 831 banks 
representing more than 70% of the SEPA payments volume (adherence status as of 9.7.2010) + 100% adherence 
expected for euro area banks after 1.11.2010, when reachability obligation under Regulation 924/2009 will come into force for euro area banks 
Complete SCF Volume enabling card schemes to define concrete technical implementation specifications for cards standards EPC End-2009 Work on SEPA 
cards standardisation "Volume" still ongoing. Version 4.0 published on 18.12.2009
45. 
Risk that definitive date defined by EPC in SCF by which all payment cards need to become SCF compliant (end-2010) cannot be respected by the market actors. – Need to speed up 
standardisation work for all domains otherwise not all options identified in the SCF
46 equally 
feasible. EPC established Cards Stakeholders Group (CSG) comprising of retailers, vendors, processors, card schemes and PSPs. CSG will further drive work on 'Volume'. 
                                                 
44 Deadline is only applicable to euro  area Member States. Non-euro area  Member States should adhere by 
1 November 2014. 
45 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/documents/EPC020-
08%20SEPA%20Cards%20Standardisation%20Volume%20-
%20Book%20of%20Requirements%20v%204%200%20approved.pdf  
46
 http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/doc uments/Cards%20SCF%20006%2009%20v%202
%201.pdf , Section 1.2.1. 
 
EN 17   EN Implementation of 
technical specifications for cards standards Cards industry End-2009: 
decision to be taken on implementation date No decision taken 
since the definition of implementation specifications is not finalised yet. Original objective of the EPC to have SEPA standards fully available by end 2010 after which the gradual implementation should take place in the market, no longer seems realistic. – Unavailability of 
card standards will cause a delay in SEPA implementation for payment cards. To be assessed whether some form of intervention mandating a timeline for development and implementation of detailed card standards is needed. 
Develop best practices ensuring a high level of security for SEPA transactions
47 EPC End-2009 Recommended 
EMV compliance for cards, terminals and ATMs at levels between 70 and 95 % at EU level. Full compliance expected at end-2010. + Upgrade of SCF 
and 'Volume' planned. EPC plans to set up a European Certification Management Body in cooperation with cards schemes. 
Deliver framework for card transactions processing EPC End-2009 Decision to develop 
framework has been taken – EPC to accelerate 
process to deliver framework 
Deliver framework for priority SCT scheme EPC End-2009 Decision by EPC 
not to develop SCT priority scheme – No follow-up 
expected at this stage 
Implementation of framework for priority SCT scheme
48 PSPs End-2012 Decision by EPC 
not to develop SCT priority scheme – No follow-up 
expected at this stage 
                                                 
47 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/docs /sepa/sepa-capgemini_study-final_report_en.pdf  
48 Implementation of the priority SCT scheme should be optional. 
 
EN 18   EN 7. PRIORITY 6: CLARIFY AND IMPROVE THE GOVERNANCE OF SEPA 
To help remedy the need for an over-arching  SEPA governance model at EU level as 
identified in the SEPA Roadmap, the Commi ssion jointly with the ECB established a new 
SEPA Council bringing together five high-level representatives from key stakeholders on both 
the demand and supply side, as well as four board members of National Central Banks on a 
rotating basis. The first SEPA Council meeting was held on 7 June 2010 and injected a new 
momentum into the SEPA migration process by a dopting a formal declaration stressing strong 
support for the establishment of end-date(s) for migration to SEPA Credit Transfers and 
SEPA Direct Debits by means of legislation at EU level49. 
In the context of SEPA governance, the Comm ission will closely monitor the implementation 
of its SEPA Roadmap and will publish bi-annual progress reports. This document represents 
the first of these reports. 
The EPC has been striving to improve the tr ansparency of the existing EPC governance 
model. The EPC scheme management internal rules stipulate that all stakeholders may 
introduce formal suggestions for changes to the schemes. Although th ere is a three-month 
public consultation on proposed changes, the evalua tion of the feasibility of the latter remains 
at the discretion of the EPC, as  does the final adoption of scheme rules. While in a network 
industry, it may not be possi ble to implement all and possi bly conflicting proposals by all 
stakeholders, this highlights the importance of proper governan ce arrangements with careful 
consideration of user concerns. The Commission services will continue to actively and closely 
monitor the implementation of th e present governance improvements in the EPC, in particular 
as regards consideration given to consumer interests, and sh ould deficiencies or weaknesses 
emerge, the Commission will not hesitate to br ing forward further proposals within the scope 
of future SEPA implementation reports. 
                                                 
49 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/payments/do cs/sepa/council/end-date_declaration_en.pdf  
 
EN 19   EN Table 10:  Action items – SEPA governance 
Action Actors Deadline State of play Assessment Follow up 
Establishment of 
effective SEPA governance structure at EU level Commission/ 
ECB End-2009 SEPA Council 
established. First meeting on 7.6.2010. 9 Future meetings of 
SEPA Council on bi-annual basis 
Biannual reporting of progress in the implementation of the SEPA Framework for action SEPA 
governance structure From the date 
of the official establishment of the new SEPA governance structure First report 
published by Commission Services in October 2010 9 Ongoing 
Adoption of measures to 
the existing EPC governance model: 1) enhance stakeholder participation and consultation; 2) increase transparency; 3) enlarge membership to payment institutions EPC  
  End-2009   End-2009 November 2009 Renewed efforts to 
involve stakeholders on demand side EPC plenary enlarged to payment institutions + Commission 
services will closely monitor implementation of governance improvements and bring forward further proposals if need be 
Evaluation of SEPA governance structure Commission/ 
ECB End-2011 SEPA Council 
established n/a at this 
stage Evaluation to be 
carried out closer to the deadline