Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament concerning a new legal framework for payments in the internal market’ (COM(2003) 718 final)
Date: 2004-06-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU law, consumer protection, euro, intra-EU payment, service, single market

C 302/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament concerning a new legal framework for
payments in the internal market’

(COM(2003) 718 final)

(2004/C 302/03)

On 2 December 2003, the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 June 2004. The rapporteur was Mr Ravoet.

At its 410th plenary session of 30 June and 1 July 2004 (meeting of 30 June), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 140 votes for, none against and five abstentions.

1. Content and scope of the proposal

1.1
The European Commission issued on 2 December 2003
a consultative document entitled Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
concerning a New Legal Framework for Payments in the
Internal Market.

1.1.1
The European Commission perceives inefficiencies of
legal and technical nature in the area of cross-border euro retail
payments. According to the European Commission a reason for
these cross-border inefficiencies lies in the inadequate legal
framework at European level. A number of legal acts relating to
payments have been adopted – including the Regulation
2560/2001/EC (1), which introduces the principle of equal
charges for national and cross-border payments in euros, the
Directive 97/5/EC (2) concerning the protection of the users of
electronic payment instruments – but no coherent legal frame-
work is in place. It is a necessary prerequisite for the proper
functioning of the internal market for goods and services to be
able to use cheap, efficient and secure payment services. The
Commission lists a number of guiding principles, which are
deemed particularly relevant in the context of the EU payment
legislation. They are as follows: 1) Efficiency as a permanent
objective; 2) Security as a ‘conditione sine qua non’; 3) Compe-
tition: access to markets and level playing field; 4) Customer (3)
protection at a high level; 5) Legal provisions need to be tech-
nically neutral; 6) Recasting of payment legislation must add
value; 7) Nature of a future legal instrument(s).

1.2
The Commission's consultative document is the result of
preliminary work carried out over a relatively long period and
is intended to lead in 2004 to a legislative initiative.

The Commission aspires, through the removal of tech-
1.3
to achieve efficiency of payment
nical and legal barriers,
services, competition on equal
terms, adequate consumer
protection, security of payments as well as legal certainty for all
parties involved in a payment process.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.
(2) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(3) By customer is meant consumers and other persons, such as retai-

lers and SMEs, using payment services.

1.4
The Commission recognises the efforts undertaken by
European banks (4). Indeed the European Payment Council was
established in June 2002. It decided on a wide-ranging work
programme for the Single Euro Payment Area with suggestions
for considerable changes on how to organise payment services
in the European Union. These plans include, in particular, the
decision to establish, as a priority, a new infrastructure (5) for
credit transfers in euro at very low transaction costs and an
expedient execution time of three days maximum.

the internal market, especially for

1.5
In the Commission's view, the liberalisation of capital
has facilitated cross-border money transfers within the EU. At
the same time,
retail
payments, is still not as efficient as at a national level. Differ-
ences also exist between national legislations and conventions
with regard to payment services in the internal market. The
new legal framework should remove, where necessary, these
legal barriers to the single payment area, in particular if they
functioning of EU-wide
create an obstacle to the proper
payment infrastructures and systems as, for instance, the rules
relating to the revocation of a payment order differ depending
on where the order was placed in the internal market. Intero-
perability, the use of common technical standards and harmo-
nisation of the essential legal rules are paramount.

1.6
Legal uncertainty is an element hindering payment
service providers and users from transacting without reticence
or at all. This is, for example, the case for direct debit transac-
tions, which do not yet exist at the EU-level (see Annex 16). It
is also relevant for regular, recurring payments (e.g. standing
order for a foreign newspaper or a public utility for a summer
house in another Member State) for which 'domiciliation' is not
possible. If the users, e.g. consumers and SMEs, should reap the
full benefit from the internal market, cross-border payment
services have to be as efficient as those at a national level. The
new legal framework should therefore close the loopholes and
enhance confidence and welfare of consumers in the single
payment area in the internal market.

(4) e.g. Euro Banking Association's (EBA) system EURO 1 and STEP1.
(5) EBA made its first transactions on 28.04.2003.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/13

1.7
In the internal market consumer confidence in payment
transactions is in particular relevant since there is often a cross-
border dimension and since confidence is essential when using
the potential of e-commerce within the EU-market. Article 153
of
the Treaty therefore requires a high level of consumer
protection, which is a guiding principle for the new legal
framework. However, the costs for such protection need to be
assessed as they will ultimately be borne by the customer in
one or the other way.

1.8
For the benefit of customer protection it is necessary to
have coherent and user-friendly information requirements prior
and post execution of a payment transaction. Many provisions
already exist in the present EU payment legislation in this
respect, which need to be reviewed. One of the most difficult
tasks is to strike the right balance with regard to the content
and volume of information so that the Payment Service User
reading it is able to understand and to be aware of these rights
and obligations.

The Commission

for
1.9
consumer protection in case of non-, defective- or unauthorised
payment transactions also to be very important.

safeguards

considers

legal

The essential part of the Communication is represented
1.10
by the 21 annexes, each raising a specific legal and/or technical
issue concerning the efficient
the internal
market for payments.

functioning of

2. General observations

2.1
The objective of the Commission's initiative of estab-
lishing a coherent and comprehensive legal framework for the
Single European Payment Area is shared by the Committee.
While there are certainly barriers to the internal market for
payments, these are a product of differences in national legisla-
tion systems. Payments in the internal market today are still
very largely governed by national rules and/or conventions.
With 98 % of all European retail payments made domesti-
cally (1), consumer demand for cross-border payments in the
EU is obviously limited.

2.2 Many domestic markets for payments in Europe are
highly efficient. Therefore,
legislation should be limited to
removing barriers to cross-border payments, so as to achieve a
common efficiency level. The improvement of cross-border
payment systems should not
therefore carry any negative
consequences for existing, efficient national payment systems.

The Commission should remove the legal obstacles that
2.3
prevent the creation of EU-wide market conventions and agree-
ments, but not
impose regulation on aspects that can be
covered by those conventions and agreements. Indeed, one has
to strike the right balance between the self-regulation/co-regu-
lation and the EU legislation.

According to the EESC (2), self-regulation as well as co-
2.4
regulation shall be supported. However, strict regulation must
be adopted in all areas where self-regulatory or co-regulatory
measures proves to be inappropriate, inadequate or incorrectly
applied

Indeed, the Committee supports the principle of a high,
2.5
common level of consumer protection on the basis that it is an
overriding Treaty objective.

The internal market for payments must be internation-
2.6
ally competitive. If the new EU legislative framework leads to
an increase in payment related costs, there is a real risk that
payments business will be increasingly operated by non-EU
players outside Europe and that the legislation will fail to meet
its goals.

2.7
The Committee does not think that it would be desirable
to exclude cheques from the scope of payments covered by the
new instrument, since this means of payment is still used in
some Member States.

through self-regulation,

It will also be necessary under the new arrangements to
2.8
ensure,
that credit and debit cards
issued or authorised by any financial institution recognised in a
Member State are accepted by any ATM in any other Member
State.

3. Specific observations

3.1 Right to provide payment service to the public (Annex 1)

recognition principle

The treatment of this issue in a new legal
framework for
payments is of vital importance to the safety of the financial
system. As a payment system is the cornerstone of the entire
economy payment services have to be regulated in all Member
States. The mutual
should not be
employed without
first establishing harmonised minimum
licensing requirements for payment services. This principle
would neither provide sufficient security for consumers nor a
level playing. A binding and directly applicable legal instrument
(Regulation) to implement the Commission option 2 (special
licence for payment services) would ensure a secure legal
framework for this activity. It has to be clear that if a payment
service provider is allowed to take deposits he has to be
subjected to the banking licence (solvency requirements etc.).
On a general note, it is understood that any Regulation to be
developed in this area will also apply to non-European
payment service providers operating within the Union.

(1) Aggregate percentage of various sources (Swift, EBA, Card Schemes)

compiled by the Fédération Bancaire Européenne (2003).

(2) EESC 500/2004, rapporteur Mr Retureau.

C 302/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

3.2 Information Requirements (Annex 2)

transfers,

Credit institutions are obliged to comply with the Directive
97/5/EC on cross-border credit
the Regulation
2560/2001/EC on cross-border payments in euros and the
Recommendation 97/489/EC on electronic payment
instru-
ments. Some Member States may have their own national legis-
lation and there exist the EU rules that specifically deal with
consumer information issues,
the Directive 2002/65/EC
financial
concerning the distance marketing of consumer
services and the Directive 2000/31/EC (‘the E-commerce Direc-
tive’). These requirements, sufficient in scope and content, are
implemented by banks. The Committee fully supports the
Commission initiative of consolidating existing legal provisions
in order to establish one clear legal text that will cover the
whole arena of information requirements. Information require-
ments have to be so general as to allow them to be applied to
payment instruments that do not yet exist today.

i.e.

3.3 Non-Resident Accounts (Annex 3)

3.4.4
The Committee welcomes the idea of transparency
requirements for payment service providers on the use of value
date. There should be a moderation of the financial impact of
value dating on the consumer. Convergence of the system of
value across Europe must also be considered, although since
national systems vary considerably between the Member States,
convergence must be seen as a medium-term objective.

3.4.5
This convergence process should be guided by the
principle that the value date of a payment transaction must be
the same as the date at which the money flow of the payment
order at the relevant payment service provider takes place

3.5 Portability of bank account numbers (Annex 5)

The existing Regulation 2560 refers to IBAN (1) and
3.5.1
BIC (2) which have been promoted and sponsored by the Euro-
pean Authorities,
including the ESCB (European System of
Central Banks). The IBAN numbering standard is accepted and
well functioning across the EU, proving its success. This coding
system does not allow portability. Banks
should, as a
minimum, guarantee the customer to be able to keep his
account number when moving to another branch within the
same bank.

This issue reaches far beyond the area of payments and should
thus be considered somewhere else.

3.6 Customer mobility (Annex 6)

3.4 Value dates (Annex 4)

As a general rule a competitive market will provide for a
natural drive towards more customer mobility. Banks must
facilitate the transfer of accounts as
far as possible by
forwarding all relevant details to customers. The Committee
fully encourages self-regulation aimed at increasing customer
mobility. In addition the Committee is in favour of transpar-
ency on closing fees. Those fees should be reasonable and
geared to the real administrative costs involved in closing and
transferring accounts. In addition, they should be communi-
cated before a customer opens an account with a bank.

3.4.1
indeed
Value dating is not only a payments issue;
value dates are often not specifically linked to a payment trans-
action – it can result from any account operation.

3.7 The evaluation of

the security of payment

instruments and

components (Annex 7)

3.4.2
As the Commission admits, value dating is primor-
dially a pricing issue (i.e. a product management or customer
relationship). As a product management issue, value dates are
independent of bookings, which are used to compute move-
ments on the account.

Since legislative initiatives would run the risk of enshrining old
technological solutions (security components are by essence
standardisation should preferably be
perpetually adjusted)
industry led in the frame of self-regulation that is proposed as a
first option by the Commission. The Committee believes that
industry-led certification on security should be brought in line
with common EU principles to be established, in order to avoid
confusion.

3.4.3
Value dates may vary by bank, by customers within
the same bank, or even by different operations of the same
customer within the same bank.

(1) International Bank Account Number
(2) Bank Identifier Code

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/15

3.8 Information on the originator of a payment (SRVII of FATF)

(Annex 8)

3.10.2
It also has to be kept in mind that customers are not
only sending but receiving payments. Extensively long revoc-
ability periods would then have the reverse effect of being
detrimental to customers expecting those payments.

The FATF is an inter-governmental body setting standards and
developing policies to combat money laundering and terrorist
financing on an international level. The Special Recommenda-
tion VII in the field of terrorist financing refers to wire transfers
and states ‘Countries should take measures to require financial
institutions, including money remitters, to include accurate and
meaningful originator information (name, address and account
number) on funds transfers and related messages that are sent,
and the information should remain with the transfer or related
message through the payment chain. Countries should take
measures to ensure that financial institutions, including money
remitters, conduct enhanced scrutiny of and monitor for suspi-
cious activity funds transfers which do not contain complete
originator information (name, address and account number)’.
The Committee suggests that Special Recommendation VII
should be implemented in a fully harmonised way in form of a
Regulation throughout the internal market so as to ensure its
consistent and uniform application. The respect of privacy
requirements is crucial
in this context. The countries of the
European Economic Area should preferably also be included.
On a specific note,
the information on the payer should
include the name of the account holder, instead of that of the
payer, as they might differ, so that the information on the
account holder is already stored and easily accessible by the
payment service provider.

3.9 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (Annex 9)

The Committee in its opinion on the Commission Green Paper
on ‘Alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial
law’ (1) supports FIN-NET since its inception by the Commis-
sion.
It demonstrates that cross-border conciliation schemes
can work efficiently and without bureaucracy using existing
mechanisms. The efficiency of FIN-NET owes its success to the
it covered the then novel area of cross-border
fact
payment ADR, while building on existing non-cross-border
schemes. In the payments area, procedure speed is of particular
importance for the consumer.

that

3.10 Revocability of a payment order (Annex 10)

To ensure the legal certainty for a customer, a more
3.10.1
appropriate approach for this annex would be to discuss the
definition and communication of a ‘point of
irrevocability’
according to the payment instrument used. The Committee
supports that a customer should be informed about irrevoc-
ability conditions regarding various payment systems and the
payment instrument involved.

(1) OJ C 85, 8.4.2003.

it

is

Further,

3.10.3
to distinguish between
important
customer revocability and system revocability. For clarity and
legal certainty reasons,
the settlement of payment orders
should, as a general rule, not be revoked once entered into a
system as defined by the Settlement Finality Directive.

3.10.4
The Committee is of the opinion that the issue of
revocability is complex and that further discussion is necessary.
Nevertheless, the payment service provider should inform his
irrevocability
customer on demand about
regarding the individual payment in question.

the point of

3.11 The role of

the payment service provider in the case of a

customer/merchant-dispute in distance commerce (Annex 11)

the payment

transaction as

The Committee considers that a distinction must be made
between the basic transaction and the execution of
the
such is completely
payment:
neutral. Neither the originating nor the beneficiary's banks have
any influence on the underlying transaction between the origi-
nator
and the beneficiary
the merchant)
(merchant). The Committee acknowledges that the issue repre-
sented by this annex is very complex and needs further discus-
sion.

(customer of

3.12 Non-execution or defective execution (Annex 12)

that a payment

The Committee agrees

3.12.1
service
provider should be responsible for accurately executing a
payment order and for proving that a transaction has been
accurately recorded, executed and credited to the beneficiary's
account. He is responsible for the part of the payment system
(in a technical sense), that is under his control. At the same
time it is clear that a payment service provider cannot be held
liable beyond his civil responsibility, and certainly not if he was
not negligent, or in case of ‘force majeure’. It is therefore up to
the service provider to prove that the payment transaction was
accurately recorded, executed and entered into the accounts in
the terms in which it was ordered, and this obligation cannot
be limited or avoided by contractual means.

3.12.2
The Committee believes that payment service provi-
ders could offer to be liable for claims relating to matters
outside their control in the form of a value added service. This
would be beneficial for a consumer and would lead to increased
competition.

C 302/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

3.13 Obligations and liabilities of the contractual parties related to

unauthorised transactions (Annex 13)

3.13.1 With respect to card payments, credit institutions
have already to comply with the provisions of the Recommen-
dation 97/489/CE, particularly regarding:

— the limitation of the card holder's pecuniary liability (unless
he or she commits a serious fault) to 150 euros for transac-
tions carried out with lost or stolen cards prior to stop
payment notification; and

— the reimbursement of debits that are disputed in good faith
(and of all associated bank expenses for involved debits)
resulting from fraudulent transactions effected at a distance,
without physical use of the card, or from transactions with
a counterfeit card.

3.13.2
Organised crime also stands behind fraudulent trans-
actions. The 150 euro threshold has the potential of encoura-
ging fraud. Therefore, the Committee believes that a risk-based
threshold should be introduced. The cardholder's liability in the
above mentioned case should be a percentage of the total
credit limit of his card to which he agrees in his contract. Such
a fair approach would reflect the true risk and cost, while at
the same time more efficiently discouraging fraud, thus redu-
cing the common cost.

3.13.3
A limited update of the Recommendation 97/489/EC
in accordance with the New Legal Framework is a positive way
forward. The Committee is of the opinion that this annex
should be read in connection with the opportunities to use an
electronic signature in relation to the Directive on e-signatures.

3.13.4
It is unclear whether a payment service provider can
prove conclusively – if at all – whether or not the customer
was the initiator of the transaction effected with the technically
secure electronic payment instrument. Especially in the case of
online banking transactions it seems that payment service
providers have difficulty providing such evidence since these
transactions can be conducted on private PCs which are
beyond the payment service provider's sphere of control.

3.14 Use of ‘our’, ‘ben’ and ‘share’ (1) (Annex 14)

The principle of transferring the full amount to the
3.14.1
beneficiary is central to this annex. This principle is now well
established following the Regulation 2560/2001 for payments
that can be processed in a full STP manner (Straight-Through-
Processing) as long as the corresponding domestic payments
are paid in full without deduction on the beneficiary side.

3.14.2
In addition, self-regulation exists in the form of the
ICP (Interbank Convention on Payments) (2), which today limits
the scope to credit transfers in euro. The ICP promotes the
abolishment of the possibility for intermediary banks, when
used, to deduct fees from the transferred amount.

3.14.3
Any legal framework should move away from tech-
nical terms used within specific message formats and systems
(such as SHARE, BEN, OUR), which in many cases are inap-
the
propriate in a domestic context. The Committee is of
opinion that no additional provisions should therefore be
created to replace the Directive 97/5/EC. The current charging
options exist to give customers a choice, which is part of terms
and conditions negotiated between a customer and a bank. The
risk of an over simplification and limitation of choice has to be
avoided as those charging options are the response to market
needs which go beyond the basic intra-EU credit transfer instru-
ment(s) and are necessary to support
the various payment
types as well as distance commerce. The Committee would like
the industry to increase transparency on the charging option
applied.

The Committee encourages

3.14.4
the Commission to
remove the discrepancy between the default ‘OUR’ option of
the Directive, a charging mechanism that does not exist in
most of the Member States, and the ‘SHA’ option, favoured by
the Regulation.

3.15 Execution times for credit transfers (Annex 15)

3.15.1
The Committee recalls that European banks within
the European Payments Council agreed to the default credit
transfer execution time of 3 banking working days (after the
acceptance date) via self-regulation under
the CREDEURO
Convention. In fact, the 3 days are default times which can be
further improved by individual banks. As the execution time is
a core service element, it should be left to competitive forces to
enhance services.

3.15.2
ered if the sector's initiative fails.

A further need for legislation should only be consid-

(1) ‘our’,

‘beneficiary’ and ‘share’ are three charging options for credit

(2) Interbank Convention on payments for basic credit transfers falling

transfers.

under the Regulation 2560/2001.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/17

3.16 Direct debiting (Annex 16)

3.19 Digital signatures (Annex 19)

3.16.1
Legislation to be passed and/or legal barriers to be
lifted will be precisely identified by the European Payments
Council (EPC) and communicated to the Commission once the
Pan-European Direct Debit scheme has been approved formally
by the EPC. The legal framework needed to support the Pan-
European Direct Debit scheme will very much depend on the
model chosen. Therefore, the Committee is convinced that a
close cooperation of the industry and the legislator (EC) should
be envisaged.

3.17 Removing barriers

to professional

cash circulation (Annex

17) (1)

3.17.1
This annex is not related to the question of payments
and thus outside the scope of the New Legal Framework for
Payments.

3.17.2
There should be no discrimination between cash and
non-cash payments regulation. A number of regulatory and
technical barriers prevent the development of cross-border cash
transportation in the euro zone, in particular between national
institu-
central banks' branches in one country and financial
tions' branches in another country.

The access to cross-border National Central Bank
3.17.3
(NCB) services is part of the natural development of the single
currency usage within the euro zone.

Competition in the cash transportation sector should
3.17.4
be fostered within the Euro zone in order to maximise effi-
ciency, but the Committee expresses the necessity of creating a
cross-border cash transportation licence and sufficient controls
of its application.

3.18 Data protection issues (Annex 18)

The Commission's option of including in a Regulation a provi-
sion corresponding to the Article 13, letter d of the existing
Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (2)
is the best chance to
harmonise in the short run the possibilities of exchange of
information for fraud prevention purposes in payment systems
(between operators and the authorities, and among the opera-
tors themselves, by the way of an exception to the Data Protec-
tion Directive: e.g. a database of
fraudulent merchants as
regards card transactions).

(1) Particular attention should be paid to the accuracy of the transla-
tions. In Italian, for example, the heading should rather be ‘Rimo-
zióne delle barriere al transporto di fondi’, which is closer to the
meaning of the original version.

(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

The Committee suggests that the Commission should first of all
submit their report on the implementation of the Directive
1999/93/EC (3) on Electronic Signatures. Commission proposals
for new measures are welcome. On a general note the
Committee would like to highlight that digital certification is a
product management area where the principles of technical
neutrality and competition apply.

3.20 Security of the networks (Annex 20)

The Committee welcomes actions and initiatives that make
cyber-crime a more serious offence and that look at harmonisa-
tion in this respect across the EU in cooperation with other
jurisdictions (e.g. the United States). The employment of dissua-
sive sanctions to punish unauthorised access to automatic data
processing systems with the aim of fraud, the destruction or
modification of data and the alteration of system functioning is
positive. It is also necessary to sanction parties who make avail-
able data, programs, hardware or
information specifically
designed or adapted to enable unauthorised access to an auto-
matic data processing system in order to commit fraud. A
distinction must therefore be made between the criminalisation
of fraudulent activities on payment networks for which further
EU harmonisation through legislation would be welcome and
the preventative measures to secure the payment networks
which should be left to the industry in order to encompass all
technological developments.

3.21 Breakdown of a payment network (Annex 21)

3.21.1
It seems to the Committee that the question referred
to in the Annex 21 is a sub-issue of the Annex 12 (non-execu-
tion or defective execution). Indeed,
it has to be recognised
that:

— payment network breakdowns are not a habitual phenom-

enon;

— payment network breakdowns can affect systems and appli-
ances that are not in the direct control of the credit institu-
tion (network externalities);

— credit institutions have to comply with resilience and busi-
ness continuity obligations imposed to them by the compe-
tent regulatory authorities.

3.21.2
No liability should be imposed on payment service
providers for payments not entered into the system at the time
of the breakdown. The payment service provider has limited
liability according to his civil responsibility and should prove
that he has taken all necessary measures to prevent the break-
down.

(3) OJ L 13, 19.1.2000.

C 302/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

3.21.3
The recent case of email ‘phishing’ attacks against UK
banks, one online provider saw the taking down of the online
service as a key response to the attack. Such attacks are beyond
the direct control of a provider, due to the direct email contact
between an attacker and a customer. Payment service providers
should inform their customers,
if possible, before they close
down the system for security reasons. The Committee considers
it inappropriate to penalise a provider for taking measures to
protect its customers in this manner. Further, the Committee
encourages payment service providers to be pro-active in the
prevention of such types of fraud.

4. Conclusion

4.1
The New Legal Framework should be consistent with
the European Consumer Policy Strategy, which sets the achieve-
ment of a high, common level of consumer protection as a key
objective.

The Committee supports the European Commission's
4.1.1
aim to increase consumer confidence,
legal certainty and
market efficiency for payments in the internal market. It further
welcomes the fact that self-regulation and co-regulation are
considered as a possible way forward in several of the areas
mentioned in the 21 annexes.

4.2
Priority should be given to the legislative measures
covering Annexes 1, 2, 8, 12, 13, 18 and 19. In particular, the
annexes on Consumer Information Requirements (2), Informa-
tion on the Originator of a Payment (8) and the Data Protection
Issues (18) urgently require attention.

Brussels, 30 June 2004.

4.3
Increased cooperation between the Commission and the
banking industry should be envisaged concerning the establish-
ment of the European Direct Debit Scheme (Annex 16), the
determination of who has the right to provide payment services
(Annex 01) as well as in the area of security certification of
payment instruments and components (Annex 07).

4.4
Regarding the other annexes it seems to the Committee
that self-regulation or co-regulation would be a more appro-
priate way to achieve the Commission's aim of an efficient
internal market for payments. It is clear that if self-regulatory
measures do not prove successful, a European Regulation
should be envisaged.

In the same vein,

the Committee suggests that

4.5
the
overall framework should concentrate on providing transpar-
ency to consumers and try to build as much as possible on
it is
existing practices and self-regulatory rules. For instance,
not necessary to regulate further where the market has already
achieved the objectives of
there is no
immediate need to update the Directive on Credit Transfers to
shorten the execution times). Nevertheless, in certain areas a
common approach is the right solution.

the legislator (e.g.

4.6
The scope of the Communication is often much broader
than just payments and the Commission has to highlight in a
more explicit manner
the difference between commercial
services and payment systems. Any legislative measure related
to payments should exclude issues relating to the fulfilment of
undertakings other than the payments themselves.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH