Draft EMA Response to Czech Government PSD2 consultation

!
Electronic Money Association
Crescent House
5 The Crescent
Surbiton
Surrey
KT6 4BN
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 8399 2066
Facsimile: +44 (0) 870 762 5063
www.e-ma.org
Tomáš Nýdrle
Head of Payment Services and Market Infrastructure Unit
Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic
Letenská 15, 118 10, Prague
Czech Republic
26 April 2016
Dear Tomáš
Re: Public consultation on the transposition of EU Directive 2015/2366 on
payment services in the internal market into Czech national law
(Veřejná konzultace k transpozici Směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady
2015/2366 ze dne 25. listopadu 2015 o platebních službách na vnitřním trhu,
kterou se mění směrnice 2002/65/ES, 2009/110/ES a 2013/36/EU a nařízení
(EU) č. 1093/2010 a zrušuje směrnice 2007/64/ES)
The EMA is the EU trade body representing electronic money issuers and alternative payment
service providers. Our members include leading payments and e-commerce businesses
worldwide, providing online payments, card-based products, electronic vouchers, and mobile
payment instruments. Most members operate across the European Union (“EU”), most
frequently on a cross border basis. A list of current EMA members is provided at the end of this
document.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the transposition of the revised Payment Services
Directive into Czech national law, and would be grateful if you could take our concerns into
account. We have responded to the questions that are most relevant for our members.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Thaer Sabri
Chief Executive Officer
Electronic Money Association
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 1 of 6
!
Q 4.1: Je žádoucí, aby Česká republika požadovala zřízení ústředního
kontaktního místa? Pokud ano, proč? Pokud ne, proč?
Should the Czech Republic require the establishment of central contact
points as permitted under Article 29, paragraph 4? We do not think that Payment Institutions (“PIs”) operating in the Czech Republic under the
right of establishment should have to set up a central contact point for the purposes of
communicating with the Czech National Bank (“CNB”). Such a requirement would introduce an
unnecessary administrative burden that would be unlikely to add any value.
i.
ii.
iii.
In practice, the CNB is more likely to communicate with firms – and particularly
smaller PIs – remotely (by email or by telephone). This is likely the case for firms that
are authorized in the Czech Republic itself, as well as those passporting in.
Firms’ data and internal systems are located centrally and are accessible at the head
office of the firm. There is usually a compliance officer overseeing the payment
product/service in all Member States where it operates: this compliance officer is
usually the most knowledgeable about, and familiar with, the product and the relevant
compliance requirements. It is therefore more effective for this person (or team) to
be known to the CNB. If the CNB wished to meet them in person, they could of
course travel to the CNB offices. Employing another person to simply be present in
the Czech Republic for compliance purposes will be very costly and will not
necessarily ensure greater compliance, only more administration. This is particularly
difficult for smaller innovative PIs.
If needed, firms can provide the name and contact details of a specific person with
whom the CNB can communicate and who will act as the contact point within the
firm at its head office.
Q 7.1: Je vhodné, aby se hlava III směrnice i nadále povinně ze zákona
uplatňovala i na drobné podnikatele? Zdůvodněte.
Should Title III of PSD2 continue to apply to micro businesses, as permitted
under Article 38, paragraph 2? Give reasons.
We do not think that Title III of PSD2 should apply automatically to microenterprises.
Business-to-business contracts (regardless of whether there is a microenterprise involved)
should be left to the parties to negotiate. This will allow the market to adapt and Payment
Service Providers (“PSPs”) to compete in offering payment services with enhanced benefits or
protections to micro-enterprises.
Q8.1 & 8.2: Je žádoucí zachovat zvýšené výdajové limity u prostředků pro
drobné platby stejně jako je tomu v platném znění zákona o platebním styku?
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 6
!
Zdůvodněte. Jaké jsou s výjimkou pro prostředky pro drobné platby spojeny
výhody či naopak problémy a rizika?
Should the Czech Republic maintain the higher limits for the exemptions in
Articles 42 and 63? Give reasons. What are the benefits and/or risks of doing
so?
Yes we think the existing higher limits should be maintained.
The products benefiting from this exemption generally have low profit margins, so this lighter
regulatory regime allows them to be commercially viable for issuers, which in turn means they
can be purchased by consumers.
These products are valued by a wide range of consumers, including:
-
The financially excluded, who do not have the facility to make online payments
-
Those who might wish to protect their main payment account by limiting its online use
for certain goods, or for day-to-day expenses.
-
Those who desire privacy when making purchases
-
Those who wish to limit the amount that can be spent – for example parents giving their
teenage child a card with pocket money
-
Tourists travelling between countries with different currencies
As the derogation applies to only a limited number of provisions, the consumer will continue to
benefit from the consumer protections set out in the remainder of PSD2.
Q9.1 & 9.3: Domníváte se, že je žádoucí stanovit pro uživatele platebních
služeb příznivější podmínky pro výpověď závazku z rámcové smlouvy, než
stanoví směrnice? Pokud ne, zdůvodněte?
Do you agree that the Czech Republic should establish more favorable
conditions for termination of the framework agreement than those set out
in the Directive, as permitted under Article 55, paragraph 6? If not, please
justify.
We do not think that it would be beneficial to establish more favourable conditions for the
termination of the framework agreement in the Czech Republic than that set out in PSD2. PSPs
operating across the EU rely on the harmonized rules in PSD2 in order to be able to manage
their compliance costs.
PSD2 rules on termination already protect the consumer by not allowing the notice of
termination to be longer than one month and by making sure it is free of charge subject to
limited exceptions. In practice, in order to compete by making their product (and the T&Cs)
more attractive to potential customers, many PSPs already offer more favourable terms to
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 3 of 6
!
consumers by allowing them to terminate without notice and free of charge. We believe this is
the right approach, and that competition on such issues should be left to market forces.
Providing for harmonized terms and conditions across the EU helps firms offer their products in
all Member States simultaneously, and ensure better consumer service is delivered.
Q 10.1: Domníváte se, že je žádoucí stanovit, aby poskytovatel poskytoval
plátci nebo příjemci informace podle čl. 57 odst. 1 nebo čl. 58 odst. 1
bezplatně alespoň jednou měsíčně, na papíře nebo jiném trvalém nosiči? Pokud
ano, proč? Pokud ne, proč?
Should the Czech Republic require PSPs to provide the information in Article
57, paragraph 1, and Article 58, paragraph 1, at least once a month on paper
or another durable medium free of charge? If yes, why? If not, why not.
We do not think the Czech Republic law should prescribe the format in which the monthly
statement should be provided. In particular, we strongly oppose any requirement to provide a
monthly statement in paper.
Any obligation to provide a monthly statement on paper will introduce unnecessary costs that
will not add value to consumers’ service provision. Consumers already access their products
online and are able to review their transactions and statements whilst doing so. Consumers can
also choose to save or print statements if they wish to do so.
In cases where the product does not require the consumer to have access to the internet, of
course paper statements are necessary and would be produced automatically.
Article 57, paragraph 2 and Article 58, paragraph 2 already provide an option for the framework
contract to set out that a customer’s statements be provided “at least once a month, free of
charge and in an agreed manner which allows the payer to store and reproduce
information unchanged”. Specifying the format in which transaction information is provided
should be left to the contracting parties. The legislation should not specify the medium, provided
that it is durable.
Q 12.1 & 12.2: Navrhujete uplatnit na drobné podnikatele stejný režim, jako
je uplatněn na spotřebitele (ponechat tedy úpravu platného zákona o
platebním styku)? Pokud ano, proč? Pokud ne, proč?
Should the Czech Republic continue to apply the same regime to microenterprises as to consumers? If yes, why? If not, why not?
We do not think micro-enterprises should fall under the same regime as that for consumers.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 4 of 6
!
Business-to-business contracts (regardless of whether there is a micro-enterprise involved)
should be left to the parties to negotiate. This will allow the market to adapt and Payment
Service Providers (“PSPs”) to offer more competitive payment services to micro-enterprises.
Q 17.1 & 17.3: Je žádoucí snížit odpovědnost plátce pod hranici 50 EUR?
Pokud ne, proč?
Should the Czech Republic reduce the payer's liability to below €50 as
permitted under Article 74, paragraph 1? If not, why not?
PSD2 has already increased the level of consumer protection compared to PSD1 by reducing the
maximum amount for which a consumer can be held liable in the case of an unauthorised
transaction to €50. This level is low enough to act as a small incentive to look after payment
instruments, but not large enough to amount to a significant loss in the event of the loss of the
instrument. Maintaining this threshold also helps ensure a harmonised approach across member
states and helps to deliver better customer service to Czech consumers.
Q 17.5 Spatřujete nějaká konkrétní rizika, která by mohla být spojena se
snížením hranice odpovědnosti plátce?
Do you see any specific risks that could be associated with a reduction in the
limit of liability of the payer?
Reducing the limit from €50 would decrease the effectiveness of this tool as an incentive to keep
the instrument safe and secure.
Q 20.1 Měla by Česká republika zavést jiná pravidla pro vyřizování stížností
poskytovatelem než ta uvedená ve směrnici? Zdůvodněte.
Should the Czech Republic introduce rules for the handling complaints
provider that are more advantageous for the payment services user than
those set out in the Directive, as permitted under Article 101, paragraph
2? Give reasons.
We are in favour of a harmonized approach, as this simplifies customer support and dispute
resolution, ensuring the best customer outcome. If the CNB has specific proposals, we would be
happy to respond and provide further comment.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 5 of 6
!
List of EMA members as of April 2016:
Advanced Payment Solutions Ltd
Airbnb Inc
Allegro Group
American Express
Azimo Limited
Bitstamp
Blackhawk Network Ltd
Boku Inc
Citadel Commerce UK Ltd
ClickandBuy International Ltd
Clydesdale Bank
Corner Banca SA
Ekuantia EDE, S.L.
EMP Systems
Euronet Worldwide Inc
Facebook Payments International Ltd
First Rate Exchange Services
Flex-e-card
Google Payment Ltd
iCheque Network Limited
IDT Financial Services Limited
Ixaris Systems Ltd
Kalixa Pay Ltd
CONFIDENTIAL
MarqMillions
One Money Mail Ltd
Optimal Payments
Park Card Services Limited
Payleven Ltd
Payoneer
PayPal Europe Ltd
PayPoint Plc
PPRO Financial Ltd
Prepaid Services Company Ltd
PrePay Technologies Ltd
QMoney
R. Raphael & Sons plc
Securiclick Limited
Skrill Limited
Stripe
Syspay Ltd
Transact Payments Limited
TransferWise Ltd
Valitor
Wave Crest Holdings Ltd
Wirecard AG
Worldpay UK Limited
Yandex.Money
Page 6 of 6