Talk:Single Euro Payments Area

message: The thing is called "Single Euro Payments Area", not "Single European Payments Area". The title of the article needs to be changed. (August 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.135.245.71 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected in 2006 - Martinvl (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: How does this relate to SWIFT? Anyone in the know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.158.129 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SWIFT is the financial messaging network or the conduit for SEPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmicsailor (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO ! SWIFT is not THE conduit for SEPA, but A conduit for SEPA. Participants (Banks, Payments Institutions) are free to choose their connectivity method to the scheme. This include all usual connectivity options (EBICS, leased line, proprietary, etc). Nice wikipedia SWIFT sales trick BTW !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJromT (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWIFT 

message: The map also includes countries that don't use the euro (UK, Norway, Sweden, Baltic states, Poland, etc.). Does someone know how that would work in those countries? Would their currencies be linked to SEPA too somehow, or does it only concern euro transactions in those countries (and how would that work)? Or are they just symbolically in the SEPA? Mtcv 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only euro transactions to/from/between/within those countries will go through SEPA. Other transactions will go through the usual national systems. Even if the euro isn't the national currency, people may still wish to make euro transfers, mainly for international transactions. (212.247.11.155 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is wrong. SEPA still applies if someone wants to send an amount of euros from a bank account in Norway to a bank account in the UK, for example. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other currencies? 

message: The article describes this as an "initiative" and says the "project aims to..." but offers no explanation of when governments will (or have already) vote or debate to decide whether or not this will actually be put into place. If a decision has already been made, it would be helpful to see a paragraph or so on the process of when it was introduced, by whom, who supported or opposed and on what basis, and by what process over what timeline was the decision finally made. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision 

message: As per my knowledge, below are list of countries in SEPA region.
EER countries  – Republic of Austria, Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK 
EEA countries – Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway 
Additional - Switzerland 
My Qs: 
What is EER countries? (note: EEA info available with Wiki Refer:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area)  
Why EER and EEA? What is the difference?  
Why Switzerland mentioned as 'Additional'?  
Thanks in Advance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visamal (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Andorra is not a SEPA member see the EPC list of countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.41.223 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  EER, EEA and Aditional Countries in SEPA 

message: That seems like an awful lot for just the transaction costs of international transfers. Could the source be wrong? Alch0 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Charging excessive fees for cross-border SEPA transfers is perfectly legal as long as domestic euro transfers are charged at least at the same rates. -- 79.221.127.104 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 to 3% of GDP? 

message: Second paragraph - "Direct debits will not be available until 2009. This will put severe pressure on the second milestone." Should this now be updated?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.28.84 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview 

message: Currently it is written: "Vatican City and San Marino which use the Euro by agreement with the EU will be part of SEPA[citation needed since Aug2009]."
I added "As of May 2010 they both aren't and the Vatican City isn't even using IBAN.[6]", but I propose changing the unsourced material to "San Marino and Vatican City are not part of SEPA" unless we really have a source showing their intention to use it in the future. Alinor (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican and San Marino 

message: The "misconceptions" section contains a couple of errors.
Not correct. The European Parliament mandated national and international transactions in euros should be subject to the same fee. The "in euros" part is particularly relevant for countries such as Denmark and the UK where most national transactions are not in euros. A national transaction in pounds may be subject to one fee while a national transaction in euros may be subject to a different fee. For this reason, Danish and British banks are able to charge much more for international euro transfers than for national crown/pound transfers, since they also charge the same high fees for national euro transfers. Sweden is in a separate position because of Swedish law 2002:598 which equals transaction fees for Swedish crowns and euros (although only on the Swedish side), but maybe this is going too much into detail.
Error number two: The section refers to EU regulation 2560/2001, which has subsequently been replaced by EU regulation 924/2009, but the section suggests that the first regulation would still be in force.
Error number three: I'm not sure about EU regulation 924/2009, but according to EU regulation 2560/2001, the part about equal fees only applies to the European Economic Area and not to Switzerland, Monaco or non-EU parts of France. The Vatican City State and San Marino (which are supposed to become a part of SEPA later) are not covered by the 2001 regulation either. Nordea seems to charge more for Swiss euro transfers than for French ones (but the fine print doesn't mention Liechtenstein either, which must be illegal). I believe that the Swiss parliament implemented regulation 2560/2001 in Swiss law but that this implementation doesn't affect fees on the EU side. (Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconceptions in misconceptions section 

message: "To provide end-to-end straight through processing (STP) for SEPA-Clearing the EPC committed to delivering Technical Validation Subsets of ISO 20022. Whereas bank-to-bank messages (pacs) are mandatory for use, customer-to-bank message types (pain) are not; they are strongly recommended however. Because there was tolerance left for interpretation, it is expected that several pain-specifications will be published across SEPA-countries."
I have downloaded the 390 or so documents from europeanpaymentscouncil.eu, 2 of which were ZIPs containing xsd's. all of them pacs message type subsets.
Are these the only SEPA Subsets of ISO 20022 by the EPC? or did EPC define more subsets for pain and other message types and are the xsd files just not online?
see http://www.iso20022.org/catalogue_of_unifi_messages.page for kinds of ISO20022 message types...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.111.94 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEPA message types? 

message: I started to clean the introduction to provide a better overview of the situation. I moved some of the information into a new section called "Goals". 
The part where the Swedish Kroner was used to explain the functionality of SEPA should IMO be re-arranged to convey a better overview of how Euro and non-Euro payments are being handled within SEPA. It should not use one specific currency to achieve this as there are several currencies involved in different countries. A broader perspective will be more helpful to the reader in understanding SEPA.
I am going to take a look at the rest of the article in the next couple of days. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. -- MenschMitHut (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The progress report section seems to be heavily outdated, since it speaks of deadlines in future, which occurred 2009. It would be nice if someone having the knowledge would update this section to learn what has happened to those deadlines in the past and what the current state of progress looks like. --193.92.235.193 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress Report heavily outdated 

message: Are there deadlines when banks and/or companies are required to convert over to SEPA?  GoingBatty (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one reference: http://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Standardartikel/Bundesbank/Views_Insights/current_topics_2012_12_03_sepa.html  GoingBatty (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirements to convert to SEPA? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Single Euro Payments Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130626183755/http://taz.vv.sebank.se:80/cgi-bin/pts3/mc1/MB/mblib.nsf/a-w/38F785899C2DC593C1257B5600445E72/$FILE/The_Boundaries_of_SEPA_land.pdf to http://taz.vv.sebank.se/cgi-bin/pts3/mc1/MB/mblib.nsf/a-w/38F785899C2DC593C1257B5600445E72/$FILE/The_Boundaries_of_SEPA_land.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified