Annexes to COM(2015)630 - GREEN PAPER on retail financial services Better products, more choice, and greater opportunities for consumers and businesses - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2015)630 - GREEN PAPER on retail financial services Better products, more choice, and greater opportunities for consumers and ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2015)630  |
| date | December 10, 2015 |
Questions
20. Is action needed to ensure that victims of car accidents are covered by guarantee funds from other Member States in case the insurance company becomes insolvent?
Increasing transparency and comparability of ancillary insurance
When I went to pick up my rental car, I was asked if I wanted to pay a substantial amount for additional insurance on top of the basic rental price and my current insurance.
Consumers are often not made aware of the cost or value of ancillary insurance products and can be exposed to high prices owing to a lack of competition and disclosure. One example can be seen in the car rental sector: in 2014, 44.7% of the 1758 reported consumer complaints regarding car rentals were about supplementary charges (e.g. linked to damages and extra services such as insurance products not presented at the booking stage). 64 For insurance products, including those that are ancillary to another product, the IDD will strengthen information requirements (though not on pricing), to avoid consumer detriment. Furthermore, on 4 July 2015, five major car rental companies agreed to review how they deal with consumers and to provide better information at the booking stage about optional waivers and insurance products. 65
Questions
21. What further measures could be taken to enhance transparency about ancillary insurance products and to ensure that consumers can make well-informed decisions to purchase these products? With respect to the car rental sector, are specific measures needed with regard to add-on products?
3.2 Creating new market opportunities for suppliers
Service providers face difficulties when going cross-border without establishing, i.e. by opening a branch or subsidiary in another Member State. As a result they often do not offer their products in other Member States nor ensure that they are portable. This section focuses on how the Commission could help to reduce the costs and risks inherent in providing financial services cross-border, making this possible for firms and increasing competition and consumer choice across the EU.
3.2.1 Meeting the challenges and opportunities presented by digitalisation
As firms digitalise, they have new opportunities to engage with their customers. However, they also face many challenges. For services which have been provided face-to-face in the past, providing these services at a distance or cross-border – through digitalisation – can prove difficult. This section explores these difficulties and the need for EU action to reduce them alongside work stemming from the Commission's Digital Single Market initiative. This has also been an area of particular interest for participants in the industry. 66
Helping firms make better use of digitalisation
The speed of digitalisation means that some competitive, consumer-friendly developments may not be possible or may be hindered by legislative or other arrangements which were not drafted with them in mind. The Commission is interested in how innovative, consumer-friendly services can be encouraged at the European level and how fragmentation amongst domestic markets can be prevented.
Questions
22. What can be done at the EU level to support firms in creating and providing innovative digital financial services across Europe, with appropriate levels of security and consumer protection?
Enabling electronic signature and verification of identity
A bank offers comparatively high interest rates, and has been approached by consumers from other Member States who want to deposit their money. However, the bank has to identify its customers under Anti-Money Laundering requirements – this is difficult at a distance, so it must verify their identities at a branch. Consumers do not wish to travel to its branches because of cost and time, so they choose not to deposit their funds there.
Feedback from firms has indicated that the Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements of anti-money laundering legislation limit their ability to open and maintain business relationships with customers at a distance. This is an obstacle that has also been confirmed in the Commission study on the DMFSD. 67 This can affect many financial services, but has a particular impact on savings and investment products. 68
These KYC requirements will generally include submission of documents from multiple sources which verify the customer's identity, as well as a face-to-face confirmation. The exact requirements vary between Member States, with some allowing distance verification of information (subject to certain requirements), for instance via the use of webcams and scanned documents, or with third-party verification of original documents through institutions such as postal offices. Not all Member States have options of this nature in place, and as a result the arrangements for engaging with third parties may not be accessible for firms providing products cross-border.
Requirements in some Member States also limit the use of distance contract signature, further inhibiting cross-border providers' capacity to open business relationships with new customers. This severely limits sales of products to customers at a distance, and could have a disproportionate effect upon cross-border business. The eIDAS Regulation 69 shows promise in this area; it will provide a solution for cross border use of e-identification as well of electronic trust services – electronic signatures, seals, time stamps, registered delivery service and website authentication. It should allow firms to more easily identify customers at a distance, or strongly authenticate parties to payment transactions under the revised Payment Services Directive. In this context, the financial sector has been identified as one of the areas which can benefit most from e-identification solutions.
This is an area where the potential for improvement could be considerable. The extension of measures for distance verification currently available in some Member States and the successful take-up of eIDAS may help remove a major barrier to the cross-border provision of services. Other solutions could include the removal of administrative limits on distance contracting, development of further e-identity schemes, or expansion of third-party measures for verifying identity or allowing consumers to carry their verification between providers. Such solutions must not, of course, weaken the effectiveness of EU measures on money laundering or the financing of illegal activities.
Questions
23. Is further action needed to improve the application of EU-level AML legislation, particularly to ensure that service providers can identify customers at a distance, whilst maintaining the standards of the current framework?
24. Is further action necessary to promote the uptake and use of e-ID and e-signatures in retail financial services, including as regards security standards?
Improving access to and usability of financial data
A lender is contacted by consumers from other Member States seeking loans. However, when it tries to assess their creditworthiness, it finds that there is limited information available on them, as they are from other Member States. The lender cannot substantiate the information they provide, so it decides not to lend to them.
Without access to data on consumers, it is difficult for firms to provide financial products (particularly credit or insurance) in other markets as they cannot assess the risks to which they would be exposed. They are also unable to assess the risks of mobile consumers whose data was accrued in another Member State. With the growth of digitalisation, firms' appetite for data is increasing as they use more sophisticated processes to price their products. At the same time, in some instances customers' data has become the price for ostensibly free-of-charge offerings from digital service providers, as these firms process and use this customer data themselves for marketing purposes or sell it on to other companies.
Under the CCD and MCD, creditors have the right to consult credit databases in other Member States on a non-discriminatory basis to assess the creditworthiness of potential customers. However, firms will still face issues when attempting to use this data as the techniques for its collection, distribution and use are still very diverse across the EU, and opinions vary on what data is relevant for creditworthiness assessments. Certain credit registers, for instance, only engage in ‘negative' data reporting 70 , whereas other databases also contain ‘positive’ data. 71 This means that accessing and using this data can prove challenging and that many firms may find it difficult to provide their services cross-border economically. Private cross-border credit data sharing arrangements have been initiated by the Association of Consumer Credit Information Suppliers (ACCIS) 72 , but this currently links the credit registers of a limited number of Member States. At the same time, private credit registers often collect more data than necessary for the purposes of a creditworthiness assessment, or data which might be of questionable relevance to a creditworthiness assessment.
As the financial services industry embraces digitalisation, insurance companies and other financial services firms are using modern IT and big data analysis to offer increasingly customised insurance products with personalised risk pricing involving close, data-intensive monitoring methods such as telematics devices. The increased use of data offers great opportunities to reduce prices for many consumers, but these practices also raise concerns about privacy and data protection which need to be taken into account.
Consumers will also want to benefit from the increased availability of data when they rely on a positive claims history or bonus/malus rating. The Motor Insurance Directive 73 currently includes a right for policy-holders to require at any time a statement of their claims over the last five years from their insurer, but in practice this often does not translate into a lower premium when concluding a new insurance contract. Among the reasons why are the varying methodologies of calculation of discounts, including different lengths of periods to be covered by such statements, a lack of confidence in non-harmonised statements provided by insurers and differing risk factors they take into account when determining premiums.
Questions
25. In your opinion, what kind of data is necessary for credit-worthiness assessments?
26. Does the increased use of personal financial and non-financial data by firms (including traditionally non-financial firms) require further action to facilitate provision of services or ensure consumer protection?
27. Should requirements about the form, content or accessibility of insurance claims histories be strengthened (for instance in relation to period covered or content) to ensure that firms are able to provide services cross-border?
Facilitating the provision of after-sales services
An insurer wants to offer home contents insurance online in another Member State, but doing so would require investment in a customer service centre in the local language. It does not think it will have enough business to justify the expenses involved.
After a sale, firms have obligations toward their customers which can be challenging to fulfil at a distance. Answering queries, assessing and meeting insurance claims, discussing customer concerns and addressing complaints generally requires manual intervention by employees of a firm or claims handlers in insurance undertakings. Though this can be done at distance, this can still require substantial investment from a firm, particularly where there are requirements to provide services in other languages. This issue particularly affects insurers given their claims handling obligations, for which the presence of a representative of the undertaking (such as a branch or subsidiary) in the same Member State as its customers seems crucial. Though there are means of overcoming this through third-party contracting or outsourcing, these options are not always available or attractive, particularly given the need to oversee any contractors acting on a firm's behalf.
Questions
28. Is further action required to support firms in providing post-contractual services in another Member State without a subsidiary or branch office?
Converging procedures for personal insolvency, property valuation and collateral enforcement
A lender has been approached by consumers in other Member States, interested in the low fixed rates it offers for residential mortgages. However, it is sceptical about how the value of properties in other Member States is assessed and whether it could enforce the guarantee if necessary. It cannot provide loans to these consumers.
Creditors may hesitate to offer more cross-border credits because they do not have sufficient knowledge about the applicable personal insolvency regimes in other Member States (where these regimes exist). Whilst the CMU Action Plan takes some steps towards more convergence in certain areas of business insolvency regimes across all 28 Member States, such as on early restructuring and enhanced effectiveness of administration of cross-border business insolvency proceedings, there are still substantial divergences in relation to personal insolvency regimes across the EU. This creates additional risk for firms wishing to enter a cross-border business relationship with customers, particularly in relation to provision of credit – if lenders are unable to assess and quantify the outcome of insolvency proceedings and repossession laws, they will not feel confident lending to individuals. Member States' laws and practices on business failure and insolvency and on personal over-indebtedness are currently the subject of two studies due for completion in 2016.
Similarly, an accurate understanding of a property's value is essential for creditors to have certainty about the collateral’s value in the event of default. Though MCD requires that reliable standards for property valuation be in place in all Member States, it does not fully ensure convergence of standards at an EU level. In the absence of full convergence, some creditors might still have doubts about the value of collateral situated in other Member States.
Questions
29. Is further action necessary to encourage lenders to provide mortgage or loans cross-border?
3.2.2 Compliance with differing regulatory requirements in host Member States
The differences between Member State regulatory regimes have a significant impact on the cost and risk of providing retail financial services cross-border. Though there is some measure of legal harmonisation across the EU as a result of Union-level legislation, there are legal differences in areas such as contract law and firms must comply with a substantial body of regulatory requirements in each Member State.
Different requirements can originate from specific aspects of Member State financial sectors or legal traditions. National regulatory frameworks diverge substantially on issues including contracts, data protection, consumer protection, disclosure, anti-money laundering or taxation. As regards the law applicable to the civil aspects of contracts, a distinction has to be drawn between insurance contracts and other contracts. For insurance, the applicable law is in principle that of the country where the insured risk is located, often where the policy-holder has his habitual residence. 74 The parties' ability to choose another law is heavily circumscribed. For other contracts concluded with consumers, the parties may choose the contract law of the seller's Member State to apply to cross-border transactions, which may reduce legal compliance costs for firms in some cases; however where the seller carries out activities in, or directs activities to, the Member State in which a consumer is habitually resident, such a choice is without prejudice to the protection afforded to the consumer by that law. 75
These differences can create significant costs and risks for firms which wish to do business with consumers located in another Member State. The average contract law-related costs for non-financial business are estimated at approximately €10,000 for each Member State. 76 Financial firms face significant extra costs on top of this figure in each Member State as a result of the specific laws and regulations which apply to the sector. 77 Requirements and costs can also differ depending on whether a firm operates on the basis of freedom of establishment (with physical presence) or free provision of services (including online). A firm providing services generally needs to comply with only a part of host Member State's rules, for instance on conduct or consumer protection.
EU passporting rights are currently available for a number of activities 78 , and allow firms authorised in one Member State to provide its services in another Member State with reduced administrative burdens and a minimum of paperwork. However, passporting does not eliminate legal compliance costs, and passporting rights do not extend to all products. Potential other methods of incrementally reducing the costs and risks associated with differing legal requirements are outlined below.
Making it easier for firms to comply with legal requirements applicable in other Member States
An online financial platform has faced problems when attempting to offer savings products in multiple Member States. Information has not been easily accessible and it has received little constructive support from the Member State authorities, despite the benefits its products can bring to consumers. Its compliance and legal costs are high, and have made its offer less attractive.
Member States could do more to assist firms in working within the current legal framework and facilitate compliance with applicable requirements when providing services in other Member States. At present, the EU-wide SOLVIT network 79 helps businesses when they encounter problems with public authorities who do not apply EU law correctly, and 'Points of Single Contact' give assistance to firms on their obligations when providing services cross-border. 80 Initiatives such as these could potentially be extended further in the financial services and insurance area in order to reduce costs and risks for firms wishing to trade on other Member States' markets.
Member State governments or national competent authorities could make further practical assistance available (e.g. through 'one-stop-shops') for cross-border compliance procedures. This could help support firms which encounter difficulties when going cross-border, encouraging future progress in integrating the EU's markets and facilitating the development and spread of new technologies and of innovative, market-led solutions to competition issues.
Questions
30. Is action necessary at EU level to make practical assistance available from Member State governments or national competent authorities (e.g. through 'one-stop-shops') in order to facilitate cross-border sales of financial services, particularly for innovative firms or products?
31. What steps would be most helpful to make it easy for businesses to take advantage of the freedom of establishment or the freedom of provision of services for innovative products (such as streamlined cooperation between home and host supervisors)?
Creating autonomous or more closely harmonised EU-wide regimes
An insurer provides a simple life insurance policy at a competitive price in its home market, and it complies with all legal and regulatory requirements. It has seen that premiums are much higher in other Member States, and sees a business opportunity. However, it cannot sell the product in other markets as the product is designed to meet its home state's legal and regulatory requirements.
In some instances, a separate legal framework might be the best way to increase choice of product while decreasing costs for business and ensuring that consumers are adequately protected. An opt-in regime could be a framework for identical product characteristics, to be used on a voluntary basis. Its advantage would lie in providing standardisation between Member States and in overcoming many national regulatory differences in some areas. Moreover, it could be a useful means for offering comparable and easy-to-understand financial products, thus increasing consumer trust and confidence for shopping cross border. The CMU Action Plan announces the Commission's intention to assess the case for a policy framework to establish a European market for simple, efficient and competitive personal pensions.
In 2015 EIOPA consulted on the creation of a standardised pan-European Personal Pension product (PEPP). In view of their similar features, the work carried out by EIOPA could serve as a basis for developing an opt-in regime for a pan-European life insurance product. This could also prove valuable for other products.
Similar ends could also be achieved by bringing national regimes and rights closer into line to encourage convergence through guidance, improved comparability or standardised practices, potentially through further development of current or new passporting regimes, convergence in supervisory standards (led by the ESAs) to limit issues with host state regulators. The concept of 'general good' rules 81 in insurance, which are an exception to the fundamental principles of the Treaty with regard to free movement, would benefit from additional clarity. Inspiration could be drawn from UCITS as a current successful example of an EU-wide regime.
Questions
32. For which retail financial services products might standardisation or opt-in regimes be most effective in overcoming differences in the legislation of Member States?
33. Is further action necessary at EU level in relation to the 'location of risk' principle in insurance legislation and to clarify rules on 'general good' in the insurance sector?
Section 4 Next Steps
Interested parties are invited to send their answers to the questions in this Green Paper by 18 March 2016 through the online questionnaire: [Link].
This consultation follows the normal rules of the European Commission for public consultations. Responses will be published unless respondents indicate otherwise in the online questionnaire. In order to ensure a fair and transparent consultation process, only responses received through our online questionnaire will be taken into account and included in the report summarising the responses. Should you have a problem completing this questionnaire or if you require particular assistance, please contact: [email address].
The general rules on personal data protection are accessible on the EUROPA website here: http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm#personaldata . The specific privacy statement for this consultation can be found here: [Link].
Please also reflect whether there are any obstacles which are not discussed in this document, and whether any of the obstacles described particularly affect Small and Medium Enterprises.
During the consultation process, the European Commission:
will engage with the European Parliament to get direct feedback from its Members;
invites Member States to organise consultations and events with the public and national parliamentarians to promote discussion on these issues at national level; and
will organise in a transparent and balanced manner workshops to consult those with specific technical expertise (such as academics and market participants) to reach an informed view on specific issues.
The Commission's goal is to maximise the practical benefits of a Single Market in retail financial services for as many European consumers as possible by opening up the market and making it work better for them, so that they have a bigger and better choice of financial products. Our action will also aim to break down some of the practical barriers that prevent businesses from offering their services across borders. The Commission will also maintain a focus on its broader goals of ending unjustified geo-blocking and other form of discrimination based on nationality or place of residence, supporting consumer confidence in the availability of appropriate redress, and improving access to comprehensible, comparable and proportionate information on retail financial service products.
The Commission will organise a conference in early 2016 to examine the evidence yielded by the consultation and discuss priority areas mentioned in the present Green paper. The Commission envisages publishing an Action Plan on Retail Financial Services to follow up the consultation around summer 2016.
(1)
The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) guarantees free movement of goods, capital, services, and people within the EU.
(2)
See, for instance, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD), Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29); Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).
(3)
Notable tools include the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network established as part of the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation – Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (OJ L 364, 9.12.2004, p. 1).
(4)
The three ESAs are the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the European Banking Authority (EBA) and European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)
(5)
For instance, the Commission’s Financial Services Action Plan (1999); Communication from the Commission: Sector Inquiry under Art 17 of Regulation 1/2003 on retail banking (COM(2007)33 final); Green Paper 'Retail Financial Services in the Single Market' (COM/2007/0226 final); and Green Paper 'Towards an integrated European market for card, internet and mobile payments' (COM/2011/0941 final).
(6)
Commission Communication: A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe ( http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-communication_en.pdf )
(7)
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Action Plan on Building a Capital Markets Union, COM (2015) 468 final, 30.9.2015.
(8)
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Upgrading the Single Market: more opportunities for people and business, COM (2015) 550 Final 28.10.2015
(9)
European Commission, Call for Evidence: EU Regulatory Framework for Financial Services ( http://ec.europa.eu/finance/consultations/2015/financial-regulatory-framework-review/docs/consultation-document_en.pdf )
(10)
For further information see http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/insurance/index_en.htm
(11)
Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ L 271, 9.10.2002, p. 16)
(12)
For further information see http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/sector_inquiries_e_commerce.html
(13)
Eurostat, EU citizenship - statistics on cross-border activities, April 2013, ( http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/EU_citizenship_-_statistics_on_cross-border_activities ) (access March 2015)
(14)
Territories with specific geographical features, Working paper, European Union Regional Policy, n° 02/2009, pp. 4-5.
(15)
European Parliament, EU contract law as a tool for facilitating cross-border transactions: a point of view from consumers, 2010 ( http://www.europarl.europa.eu/webnp/cms/pid/1483 ), p. 9.
(16)
Special Eurobarometer survey 373 Retail Financial Services, p. 28 and thereafter (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finservices-retail/docs/policy/eb_special_373-report_en.pdf)
(17)
Special Eurobarometer survey 373 Retail Financial Services, p. 32
(18)
Study on the functioning of the consumer credit market in Europe, July 2013 ( http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/rights/docs/consumer_credit_market_study_en.pdf ), pp. x-xi
(19)
Source: ECB Statistical Data Warehouse
(20)
DSF Policy Paper N°45s 'Cross-border insurance in Europe' Dirk Schoenmaker and Jan Sass, November 2014, p.12
(21)
European Mortgage Federation, Hypostat 2015, p. 15
(22)
Financial Services User Group, 'Retail Financial Market Integration' ( http://ec.europa.eu/finance/finservices-retail/fsug/papers/index_en.htm ).
(23)
Source: European Mortgage Federation
(24)
Insurance Europe Report on European Motor Insurance Markets, page 40 (Chart 48), November 2015 ( www.insuranceeurope.eu ). Please note that this graph has been edited to remove non-EU countries. See also Retail Insurance Market Study by Europe Economics (26.11.2009), p. 301 & 315 ( http://ec.europa.eu/finance/insurance/docs/motor/20100302rim_en.pdf )
(25)
See Banking Structures Report, ECB, October 2014, p.15 ( https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/bankingstructuresreport201410.en.pdf )
(26)
Summary Report of the Replies to the Public Consultation on the Review of the Insurance Block Exemption Regulation (IBER) ( http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2014_iber_review/summary_report_en.pdf )
(27)
See EU/EEA (Re) insurance statistics (table 10). ( https://eiopa.europa.eu/financial-stability-crisis-prevention/financial-stability )
(28)
Monitoring consumer markets in the European Union 2013, pp. 43-44. ( http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/consumer_scoreboards/market_monitoring/docs/consumer_market_monitoring_2013_part_1.pdf .)
(29)
Eurobarometer survey 373 “Retail Financial Services”, p. 85
(30)
FCA, Cash Savings Market Study Report ( http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/market-studies/cash-savings-market-study-final-findings.pdf ); Autoriteit Consument & Market, Barriers to entry in the Dutch retail banking sector, p. 69
(31)
See the most recent Consumer Markets Scoreboard at http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/consumer_scoreboards/index_en.htm
(32)
Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p.34). Article 25 addresses issues relating to early repayment
(33)
Directive 2014/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on the comparability of fees related to payment accounts, payment account switching and access to payment accounts with basic features (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 214)
(34)
MCD Art. 12 (4): "Member States may allow creditors to require the consumer to hold a relevant insurance policy related to the credit agreement. In such cases Member States shall ensure that the creditor accepts the insurance policy from a supplier different to his preferred supplier where such policy has a level of guarantee equivalent to the one the creditor has proposed."
(35)
Publication expected early 2016 , see also http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/07/22-insurance-mediation/ .
(36)
Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p.349)
(37)
Statista, Online banking penetration in selected European markets in 2014, website ( http://www.statista.com/statistics/222286/online-banking-penetration-in-leading-european-countries/ )
(38)
KPMG, Mobile Banking 2015: Global trends and their impact on banks, pp. 21-22. KPMG has posited that the increased engagement with financial products that stems from online banking encourages more active review of consumers' potential options.
(39)
KPMG, Mobile Banking 2015: Global trends and their impact on banks, p. 27.
(40)
KPMG, Mobile Banking 2015: Global trends and their impact on banks, p. 21.
(41)
Further information on SEPA can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/finance/payments/sepa/index_en.htm
(42)
For further information see http://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/retpaym/governance/eu/html/index.en.html and http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/
(43)
The examples used in this document are inspired by a number of real-life cases brought to the Commission's attention.
(44)
EIOPA report on Good Practices on Comparison Websites (January 2014)
(45)
European Commission, 'Comparison Tools and Third-Party Verification Schemes', website ( http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/comparison_tools/index_en.htm )
(46)
Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ L 133, 22.05.2008, p.66)
(47)
Firms are currently subject to EU legislation on unfair contract terms and unfair commercial practices (see footnote 3) which limit some contractual and non-contractual barriers to consumer switching.
(48)
See, for instance, FCA Cash Savings Market Study, which proposes use of text alerts were a bonus period will soon end ( https://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/market-studies/cash-savings-market-study-final-findings.pdf )
(49)
Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on cross-border payments in the Community and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 (OJ L 266, 9.10.2009, p. 11)
(50)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 October 2015 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on payment services in the internal market and amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2013/36/EU and 2009/110/EC and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC ( COM(2013)0547 – C7-0230/2013 – 2013/0264(COD) ). See Articles 59 and 60(3)
(51)
BEUC, Protecting consumer interests in the retail financial services area, 2011, p.3 ( http://www.beuc.org/publications/2011-09879-01-e.pdf )
(52)
See, for instance, the example available in Section 2.1.
(53)
The consultation on geo-blocking will be open until 28 December 2015 (see https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/geoblocksurvey2015/ )
(54)
For private pensions, the issue is being addressed as part of the Commission's work on the CMU.
(55)
Article 23 of the Services Directive allows Member States to require service providers to subscribe to professional liability insurance or to provide for some other form of financial guarantee. (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36)
(56)
Eurobarometer survey 373 “Retail Financial Services”, p. 42, which notes 'not having clear information' (29%), 'do not know your rights in there are problems' (28%) and 'less consumer protection in other EU member states' as concerns in purchasing from another Member State.
(57)
Directive 2009/65/EC, as amended, most recently, by Directive 2014/91/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 amending directive 2009/65/EC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertaking for collective investments in transferrable securities (UCITS) as regards depository functions, remuneration policies and sanctions (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 186)
(58)
Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (OJ L 352, 9.12.2014, p.1)
(59)
For further information see http://ec.europa.eu/finance/fin-net/index_en.htm
(60)
FIN-NET currently has 57 members from 22 Member States and the 3 EEA countries (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
(61)
Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 63)
(62)
Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law (OJ L 201, 26.7.2013, p. 60)
(63)
See, for instance, collective redress actions launched in regard to life insurance products in France, and in relation to preferred shares and financial pyramid schemes in Spain..
(64)
Car rentals: Key data from the European Consumer Centres case handling database ( http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/enforcement/cross-border_enforcement_cooperation/docs/car_rental_version2_en.pdf )
(65)
European Commission, 'Better protection for consumers when renting cars', website ( http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/consumer-marketing/news/150713_en.htm )
(66)
See for instance, the European Banking Federation report, 'Driving the Digital Transformation', ( http://www.ebfdigitalbanking.eu/ )
(67)
Analysis of the Economic Impact of Directive 2002/65/EC concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services on the conclusion of cross-border contracts for financial services between suppliers and consumers within the Internal Market, Final Report ( http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/archive/rights/docs/final_rep_financial_services_2009.pdf )
(68)
It should be noted that earlier this year the fourth Anti-Money Laundering directive was adopted. It provides for a risk-based approach that allows for more flexibility in order to take into account national specificities and the circumstances of individual business relationships or transactions. See Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73)
(69)
Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market and repealing Directive 1999/93/EC (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73)
(70)
Credits will only be reported upon once the consumer did not manage to meet his/her payment obligations.
(71)
Every single credit is registered. Data on other types of commitments may also be reported.
(72)
Further information on ACCIS can be found at http://www.accis.eu/
(73)
Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ L 263, 7.10.2009, p.11).
(74)
See Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008, p. 6.
(75)
See Articles 3, 4(b) and 6 of Rome I; Commission Communication: A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, p. 11 ( http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-communication_en.pdf )
(76)
European Commission Press Release: Common European Sales Law, p. 2 ( http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/common_sales_law/i11_1175_en.pdf )
(77)
Commission Expert Group on European Insurance Contract Law noted recently that some national requirements as to the form of insurance contracts clearly entail costs for businesses. See Final Report of the Commission Expert Group on European Insurance Contract Law ( http://ec.europa.eu/justice/contract/files/expert_groups/insurance/final_report_en.pdf ), p. 90
(78)
Firms covered include, for example, credit institutions, insurance companies, insurance intermediaries and mortgage credit intermediaries.
(79)
Further information on the SOLVIT network can be found on its website ( http://ec.europa.eu/solvit/ )
(80)
Further information on the Points of Single Contact can be found on their website ( http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/eu-go/index_en.htm ). These entities were created in line with the Services Directive.
(81)
A Member State may have recourse to the concept of the general good in order to enforce compliance with its own laws by an insurer wishing to carry on its business within its territory under either the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services. However, insurance directives do not lay down the concept of the general good, but it is described in the Interpretative communication of the Commission concerning the freedom to provide services and the general good of the insurance sector (OJ C 43, 16.02.2000) on the basis of requirements laid down by the Court of Justice.