The 2018 Consumer Scoreboard

On 12th October the European Commission published the 2018 Consumer Markets Scoreboard. The Consumer Scoreboard provides an overview of how the EU single market works for consumers. There are two kinds of Consumer Scoreboards, the Markets scoreboard and the Conditions Scoreboard which get published in alternate years. This year it is the turn for the Markets Scoreboard which monitors the performance of over 40 markets as experienced by consumers.

Here is a summary of some of the most interesting findings of the scoreboard:

• The overall positive trend of consumers' assessment of markets continues; however there is divergence between different part of the EU. Markets in Western Europe perform better, while markets in South Europe are lacking in performance. The Eastern Europe markets are the ones that show the greatest improvements.
•  Services continue to underperform in the Scoreboard with the lowest performing being banking services and real estate.
• The financial situation of consumers plays an important role in their assessment of markets as poorer consumers are, unsurprisingly more negative in their assessment.
• Choice and comparability in utility markets, and especially in electricity, is leaving consumers dissatisfied.
• The highest incident of problems reported (16.9%) was noted for telecommunications, with that percentage being even higher (20.3%) for internet services. While the performance of the markets ranges across countries, with southern countries being less satisfied, the sector continues to be a cause for concern.

Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova responded to the findings of the Scoreboard by pointing out that the 'New Deal for Consumers'and the announced measures, such as a new representative action for consumers should serve to increase consumer trust in the single market.

An end to high banking transfer charges in the EU?

On 28^th March, the EU Commission put forward a Proposal for a Regulation that will reduce charges for bank transfers in the European Union outside the euro area. This initiative is aiming at making the banking union ever closer, especially in retail banking where there have been fewer actions compared to prudential regulation.

Thanks to Regulation 924/2009 fees for cross-border payments in euros between euro area members have been equalised. However, the situation in non- euro zone EU countries is very different with consumers often paying expensive fees even for the transfer of small amounts of money. As mentioned in the press release for the Proposal, consumers in some instances were called to pay as much as 24 euro charges for the transfer of 10 euros, making it highly detrimental to consumers.

The proposed Regulation amends Regulation 924/2009 and aims at removing this perceived barrier to the single market by extending its scope to non-euro area Member States. It must be noted that the proposed regulation only covers transactions in euros and not in other currencies. Regulation 924/2009 offered the possibility to extend the regulation to other currencies, yet only Sweden has made used of that rule. Therefore, the Commission decided this was the time to introduce this measure as now euro payments are cheaper than they were in the past.

The effect of the Proposal is two-fold, as it harmonises cross-border banking charges as well as improving transparency. According to the Proposal charges for cross-border payments in euros will be the same as charges for national (non-euro) payments. This means that the transfer fees will be significantly lower if not nonexistent. Consumer will not be the only ones to benefit, as also businesses will be able to be more competitive to businesses operating in the euro area.

As for transparency, at present consumers are not able to compare options, especially when paying with a card where they are offered the option to pay either in the local currency or in their home currency. The Proposal tackles this issue by obliging payment service providers to offer the full cost of both options to consumers prior to the initiation of a payment transaction. Furthermore, recognising the constant technological advances in the field, the European Banking Authority (EBA) will develop regulatory technical standards on how payment service providers are to fulfill their transparency obligations as well as being able to place caps on such conversion charges.

The Proposal has been positively received by consumer organisations, as reported in a euractiv article .Indeed this is a positive development for EU consumers and should it be voted in the Parliament as it will have a tangible effect on their everyday transactions making them easier and cheaper and making the banking union ever closer.

Foreign currency exchange transactions connected to foreign currency denominated loans are not investments

Judgment of the CJEU in C-312/14 Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos and Mártonné Lantos delivered on 3 December 2015 

The Hungarian District Court of Ráckeve (Ráckevei Járásbíróság) in  referred an interesting question to the CJEU: can the foreign currency exchange transaction be legally separated from the underlying foreign currency denominated loan, and if so, what are the implications for the consumer?

As we have reported earlier, AG Jääskinen first of all considered that the reference for preliminary ruling is inadmissible. However, should the CJEU decide to proceed on the merits of the case, AG Jääskinen was of the opinion that the CJEU should answer the question negatively. The AG disagreed with the referring national court that the foreign currency exchange can be legally separated from the underlying loan contract and be considered a separate, derivative contract, a forward currency transaction. 

The CJEU did consider the request for preliminary ruling admissible (see paras. 35-42), and following AG Jääskinen's opinion, ruled that foreign currency exchange transactions connected to foreign currency denominated loans are not 'investment services or activities' within the meaning of Art. 4(1)(2) of MiFID (para. 76). Consequently, consumers of foreign currency loans are not considered to be investors and do not enjoy the protection guaranteed by Art. 19 MiFID (para. 75).

First, the CJEU rejected that the transaction in question is an investment service or activity listed in section A Annex I of MiFID, because it is incidental to the granting and repayment of the loan (para. 55), and serves no other purpose than to perform the credit contract.

Second, the CJEU rejected the argument that the transaction falls within the scope of 'dealing on own account' under Section A(3) of Annex I MIFID, because this means trading proprietary capital that results in contracts for one or more financial instruments (paras. 58-59). In the present case however the transaction did not result in concluding a contract for a financial instrument. Instead, it served to secure the granting and the repayment of the loan (para. 60-61). 

Third, according to the CJEU, the transaction cannot be considered to fall under Section B of Annex I MIFID, under which a grant of  loan or credit may constitute an ancillary service, because this includes only loans granted for the purpose of concluding one or more contracts for financial instruments, and this was not the case here (para. 63-68).

Finally, the CJEU rejected the argument that the foreign currency exchange transaction falls under any financial instrument listed in Section C of Annex I MIFID, particularly futures. Futures, such as forward currency transactions, are a type of derivative where two parties undertake to buy or to sell, on a subsequent date, an underlying asset at a price fixed at the time of contract conclusion (para. 69). The transaction in question however does not serves the purpose of a sale of a financial asset at a price which is fixed at the time of contract conclusion. In fact, according to the CJEU, there is no distinction between the loan agreement and the future currency sales transaction, since the latter serves the performance of the loan contract, that is, the payment of the capital and the scheduled repayments (paras. 70-71). In addition, the value of the currency (that is to be taken into account for the calculation of repayments) is not fixed in advance.It is rather determined on the basis of the sales price of the currency on the date of each monthly installment (para. 74).

Consequently, 'clauses of such a loan agreement relating to currency conversion accordingly do not constitute a financial instrument distinct from the operation which is the object of the agreement, but merely a term of the agreement which is an inseparable part of the performance.' (para. 72). This also means that in foreign currency denominated credit contracts consumers may be protected by Directive 1993/13 on unfair contract terms and by on Directive 2008/48 on consumer credit (paras. 48-49), but not by MiFID.

As we can see, the CJEU did conduct a more thorough analysis than AG Jääskinen (perhaps it also had more information to rely on), but it arrived to the same conclusion. The CJEU thoroughly analyzed whether the foreign currency transaction meets the requirements of MiFID and did some unpacking whether elements for a forward currency contract are met. It is now clear that foreign currency exchange transactions are not separate contracts for financial instruments, and consumers do not enjoy the protection MiFID guarantees for investors. The question is whether this is detrimental for consumers given that they do enjoy protection under Directive 1993/13 (allows for challenge of fairness of foreign currency exchange clauses) and Directive 2008/48 (provides for information requirements). 

A different look at foreign currency loans? AG Jääskinen's Opinion in C-312/14 Banif Plus Bank Zrt v Márton Lantos and Mártonné Lantos

Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen delivered on 17 September 2015

The Hungarian District Court of Ráckeve (Ráckevei Járásbíróság) in C-312/14 Banif Plus Bank Zrt. v Márton Lantos and Mártonné Lantos referred an interesting question to the CJEU: can the foreign currency exchange transaction be legally separated from the underlying foreign currency denominated loan, and if so, what are the implications for the consumer?

During 2008 when the majority of loans issued in Hungary were denominated in foreign currency, most notably in Swiss francs, the parties entered in a like loan contract for financing the purchase of a car. These contracts work in a way that the amount of the loan is agreed in a foreign currency (e.g. Swiss francs) but the loan is advanced and the repayments are due in the national currency (e.g. Hungarian forints). In Hungary this is due to Art. 231 of the Hungarian Civil Code of 1959 (that was in force at the time) that although allowed loans to be contracted in a foreign currency actual payments of any moneys owed had to be made in Hungarian forints, calculated based on the exchange rate applicable at the time and date of the payment. For this reason foreign currency loans concluded at the time contained a foreign currency exchange clause that set out the exchange rate (usually the banks buying or selling rate of exchange applicable at the date of exchange). Foreign currency loans thus shield banks from the currency risk of capital markets by transferring this risk on consumers in return for a favorable interest rate i.e. a (seemingly) cheaper loan. 

The referring national court was of the opinion that the foreign currency exchange can be legally separated from the underlying loan contract and be considered a separate, derivative contract, a forward currency transaction. This is because at the time the loan was granted, the bank calculated the equivalent amount of Swiss francs of the amount that was advanced in Hungarian forints at the exchange rate previously determined in the contract, then it purchased from the client the equivalent amount of Swiss francs at the determined exchange rate for the equivalent amount of forints. Later, at each loan repayment, the bank sold the client Swiss francs for the equivalent amount of Hungarian forints at the determined exchange rate (para 15). This according to the Hungarian court gives to a loan contract a possible capital markets dimension opening the interpretation of the concepts of financial instrument and investment activity under the Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments - MiFID (para. 16).

Although AG Jääskinen is of the opinion the reference is inadmissible because essential information is absent, information important for the CJEU and interested persons entitled to submit observations to form clear understanding.of the factual and legal context of the main proceedings (para. 21), the AG does give an analysis if the CJEU would nevertheless proceed on the merits of the case.

AG Jääskinen is of the opinion the transaction at hand is not a derivative contract or a forward currency transaction and therefore does not fall under the rules of MiFID (para. 40). Derivative instruments or contracts (see the explanation of derivatives here) are used by one party for protecting against ('hedging') the risk and for speculative purposes by the other party. They work in a way that the future price, rate or value of the underlying asset is fixed beforehand (para 41). This implies that the actual price of the underlying asset (here probably the currency) is different from the contracted future one. This circumstance creates in the derivative instrument an independent economic value from the underlying loan (para. 42). According to AG Jääskinen this is not the case in the present situation. There is no independent economic value because the actual price and the contracted one does not differ, the exchange rate fixed in the loan contract is later used for the currency conversion without creating any added economic value. It is in essence a liquidation of a foreign currency denominated debt in a national currency at the date of payment (para. 43). 

Therefore, AG Jääskinen is of the opinion that the loan expressed in a foreign currency that is advanced and repayable in a national currency at the actual rate on the day of the payment is neither in itself or does it contain a financial instrument or a financial service within the meaning of MiFID (para. 46).

This in turn means that consumers of foreign currency loans are not considered to be investors and do not enjoy the protection guaranteed by Art. 19 MiFID (para. 48-49).

Although the analysis has many valid points and was particularly difficult due to the scarcity of essential information and the complexity of the issue, I somehow do not find convincing that there was no forward currency transaction, even if the conclusion may be correct. AG Jääskinen is of the opinion that we do not have an added economic value because the actual price and the contracted one are not different due to the fixed exchange rate in the contract. However, the characteristic of this derivative contact is exactly fixing the exchange rate for the purchase or sale of currency at a future date (see here). I might be wrong, but I would have expected to see an explanation of what this 'fixing' or 'lock in' means. Does fixing means giving an exact value i.e. a fixed price or is it enough to determine the benchmark at the time of contract conclusion (e.g. the banks selling rate at the date of execution)? If the latter is the case then why is the transaction not a forward currency contract? Second, AG Jääskinen starts from the fundamental point that MiFID is aimed at protecting investors. However, in his opinion consumers of foreign currency loans are not investors in the sense of MiFID because an investor is 'somebody who invests or intends to invest his own or borrowed capital in a financial instrument with a view of gaining revenue, or at least protecting the value of his capital' (para 37). In the present case the client did not intend to invest any capital but to borrow money. While this is true, the point that I missed here is that consumers are often 'tricked' into buying financial services and products they do not need (recall the UK PPI scandal), so the very fact that they did not intended to invest should not deny their protection guaranteed by MiFID.

Thus in my opinion a more thorough analysis would be necessary to decide on the merits of the case, including unpacking whether elements for a forward currency contract are met and touching upon a question whether debtors can be investors within the meaning of MiFID.

We will eventually see whether the CJEU will proceed to decide on the merits of the case (recall that in AG Jääskinen's opinion the reference in not admissible), but if it decides to do so, do you agree with the AG's reasoning?

Press digest

Consumer Products & Sustainability

Some of the recent press articles express concerns that some of popular consumer products will be soon disappearing from the market if they do not meet new European requirements on efficiency and sustainability set by the Ecodesign Directive. (Europe's ban on 'wasteful' gadgets - doest it cost or save?) 

Another article points out to the decreased life span of consumer electronic products, where wasteful consumption of goods may result from the consumer's need to update their products to newer, better versions more often (Lifespan of consumer electronics is getting shorter, study finds). 

You may also read in recent press more about the problems of marketing of sustainable products. While some researchers discovered that consumer care about e.g. environmental impact of their purchases, this often still doesn't influence their purchasing behaviour. Could this be explained by the fact that consumers don't see what's in it for them to change their decision-making to reflect sustainability trends? (The problem with sustainability marketing? Not enough me, me, me)

Customer service & consumer information

Interesting findings of two studies on customer service in the UK have been discussed in Forbes by Adrian Swinscoe (Is Customer Service Going to Get Worse Before It Gets Better?). Tentative conclusions that could be drawn from this article are that while customer services seems to be improving, the improvement may be too slow for the dramatic raise in consumer expectations as to what level of customer service they should be receiving.

Speaking of customer services, some banks are considering to start texting their customers that it may be in their interest to switch a financial service provider, lower balance levels, avoid overdraft charges, etc. This may be the result of the reported inefficiency of bank statements that consumers currently receive. (British watchdog tells banks to text time-poor customers)

Are the European institutions looking for a way out from the promises they have made to deliver roaming-free phone services to Europeans in 2015? This is the subject of an article discussed in Deutsche Welle (Europeans free to 'roam if you want to' - but without phones, without data).

Press digest

Mobile banking

The Financial Times Adviser discusses the ongoing plans to regulate on the European level mobile banking (Getting mobile banking working). Currently, the revision of the Payment Services Directive and of the Regulation on Multilateral Interchange Fees is being negotiated among the European institutions. 

On review of the mobile banking industry in the UK conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority see: Mobile Banking and Payments - FCA Industry Review. Important: no evidence of consumer harm was found in the mobile banking and payments area.

Tobacco Products Directive

Another company - Philip Morris International - was granted a right by the English courts to apply for a preliminary ruling in front of the Court of Justice with regards to the interpretation of the Tobacco Products Directive. This time it is the competence of the EU to regulate in this area that is being questioned: the argument is that the Directive does not aim to improve the internal market (e.g. it prohibits menthol even though it's legal in all Member States); that the Directive infringes consumers fundamental rights to information about the products they are choosing (through forcing companies to adopt plain packaging); as well as whether the delegation of power to the Commission to specify certain issue was validly defined (Philip Morris International Granted Right to Challenge EU's Tobacco Products Directive Before the Court of Justicce of the European Union).

Mortgage Credit Directive

Telegraph reports on the uncertainties related to the implementation of the new Mortgage Credit Directive in the UK - who exactly may be seen as consumer and fall under the Directive's scope? "Accidental landlords" - that is persons who became landlords "as a result of circumstance rather than through their own active business decision" will be seen as consumers. Who is that exactly? And what rules shall apply to buy-to-let mortgages? (Would this buy-to-let couple be caught out by new EU rules?)

Privacy online

If you are interested to see which applications and which online tools have what sort of privacy protection, check this data on the Secure Messaging Scorecard (A project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

US consumer news (just for fun)

Verizon fights against the Federal Communications Commission plan to introduce net neutrality, threatening to take them to court: Verizon: We Will Sue FCC Again If "Hybrid" Net Neutrality Happens.

Berkeley, California becomes the first American city to introduce a tax on sugary drinks: California City Votes In The Nation's First Soda Tax

Apple is being sued for an equivalent of wiretapping due to users who switched from an iPhone to an Android phone not receiving their iMessages (More Former iPhone Users Suing Apple, Claiming iMessage "Intercepts" Texts Meant for Android Phones).

Federal Trade Commission sues Gerber Products Co. for falsely advertising that its Good Start Gentle formula prevents or reduces the risk of children developing allergies (FTC Sues Gerber For False Advertising Over Claims Its Formula Can Prevent Allergies).

Press digest

Cloud computing

New research suggests that 72% of European cloud users still are not able to answer any questions as to where their data is being transferred to, which means that even if they have been informed about this by their cloud service providers, this information clearly has not reached them. (see Many cloud systems 'not meeting EU data protection rules')

Mobile banking and mobile advertising

The European Banking Authority is consulting its new guidelines for providing more security to online payments market. The new guidelines of the European Banking Authority so far correspond to the rules of the EU Payment Services Directive. The question is whether it makes sense to adopt them as such as of August 2015 or whether to strengthen them already in the anticipation of the new PSD2. (New payment security guidelines to apply to online retail from August 2015) A brief summary of a current EU regulatory landscape with respect to mobile banking and payments may be found here: FCA thematic review - mobile banking and payments September 2014.

 Another article presents well how the use of smartphones influences modern advertising strategies. (3 Truths About Mobile Advertising In The Era Of Hyper-Connectivity)

 

Morality & consumers

The Archbishop of Bukavu and President of the Provincial Assembly of Bishops of Bukavu and Kindu addresses the European Parliament and other European institutions to guarantee that the resources used in consumer goods are not linked to human right violations and conflicts. (EU must give assurances on the morality of trade in natural resources)

Consumer behaviour

Interesting article on what went wrong with the consumer culture/ consumer image. (Viewpoint: How the consumer dream went wrong) Another survey shows us that at least in the US trust of consumers in using their credit cards have diminished recently; is it turn to popularize fingerprint-protected credit cards? (Data Breaches Are Affecting Consumer Behaviour and Trust in Credit Cards...)

Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) a reality as of today

Today, the new Single European Payments area is officially in force. 

Based on the cooperation of European banks, the system provides a new way to make credit and debit payments (thus, including bank transfers) to any European country under the same conditions applicable to domestic payments. This should both enhance safety and decrease operation time. 

In practice, this implies that the costs of making a transfer/payment to another  SEPA-state (34 of them so far) should not exceed those charged for "internal" transfers. You should also be able to use your bank card to make payments abroad.

On the other side, if your system so far allowed you to make national transfers using only the receiver's bank account number (that is, without IBAN), that will no longer be possible.

More info? Take a look here!

EU Council on access to banking services and e-signatures

Yesterday the EU Council of Ministers adopted the Directive on the transparency and comparability of payment account fees, payment account switching and access to a basic payment account. As we have previously mentioned (Easy money), this new Directive aims to increase the transparency of payments in the EU, as well as ensure that EU citizens are able to open a basic account in any Member State regardless whether they are resident in it or what their financial situations looks like. The implementation deadline for the Member States is two years. (The right to a basic account for all European citizens: Commission welcomes Council adoption)

***

The Council has also adopted a new Regulation on electronic identification, which aims at improving online cross-border transactions by enhancing trust in electronic transactions (see earlier post: Parliament endorsing proposed EU e-signature). It will allow parties involved in e-commerce to easily recognised and authenticate electronic transactions, and this mutual recognition is planned to occur in 2018. (Council adopts electronic identification rules)

European Parliament's last stands

Last week, the European Parliament voted in its plenary session on a few proposals that are important for consumers and their fate needs to be set prior to the end of term of the current Parliament. Let us take a short look at the results of last week's session:

Roaming fees and open access internet

In the first reading on the new Telecoms package, the European Parliament consolidated work conducted so far and is ready to give a further go at it to the new Parliament after the elections (see previously: MEPs say NO to roaming and YES to open internet). The package not only aims at abolishing roaming charges in Europe as of December 2015, but also at prohibiting internet access providers from blocking or slowing down selected services ensuring more net neutrality. (Ensure open access for internet service suppliers and ban roaming fees, say MEPs)

Clinical trials

We have previously mentioned on this blog the need for ascertaining more transparency of clinical trials' data, so that it could be more thoroughly tested and so that its' results could be subjected to more academic, objective scrutiny (see e.g. Who's keeping the score?...). This would increase patients' safety. On 2nd of April the European Parliament voted for a new proposal amending the existing Clinical Trials Directive. Pharma companies and academic researchers will now have to post the results of all their European clinical trials in a publicly-accessible database. The new law is also supposed to facilitate easier cross-border cooperation, which is expected to enable bigger, more reliable trials. The European Commission will be authorized to do the checks of reporting procedures, which themselves are simplified. (Clinical trials: clearer rules, better protection for patients) The proposal has already informally been agreed with by the Council so it should not take long to adopt it as law. This new proposal is welcomed by the European Ombudsman who often had to deal with complaints that citizens were refused access to clinical trials data (Clinical trials vote is a triumph for transparency in EU healthcare).

Medical devices

The MEPs voted in the first reading on the proposal for a new Regulation on medical devices in order to consolidate the existing various projects of that law and pass it on to the new Parliament. (see our previous post: New European rules on medical devices) We discussed the need for this law previously, mentioning the scandals with faulty breast implants, for example. New provisions are to enforce stricter monitoring and certification procedures of medical devices, therefore, increasing consumer safety. (Medical devices: better controls and traceability to ensure patients' safety)

Consumer payments

The European Parliament adopted also last week the proposal to cap bank fees for processing consumers' payments in the EU (at 0.3% of the transaction value for credit card transactions and at a maximum of seven euro for debit cards). (MEPs push for card payment fee caps and online payment safeguards) The caps will apply to both domestic and cross-border transactions and in time should lead to lower prices for card users. They will enter into force one year upon this law's adoption. Moreover, the MEPs decided to strengthen online payment safeguards by, among others, introducing a uniform set of information that would clearly state all charges, execution times, contact information and exchange rates. Unauthorized payment will need to be refunded within 24 hours of their being noticed. Consumers should not bear losses of illegal use of their stolen or lost cards above €50. (see our previous post: Money, money, money...)

Easy money

As we have mentioned previously the European Commission and the European Parliament have been working hard together in the past years on ensuring that EU citizens had an easier access to a basic bank account (see, e.g.: Basic bank accounts for all). In order to participate in most economic transactions nowadays, consumers need a payment account. Therefore, it was vital to secure such procedures of setting up these accounts that would be transparent and easily manoeuvrable, as well as to make sure that consumers could switch their bank accounts without incurring unreasonable costs - so that the banking market could become more competitive, hopefully offering better terms to consumers. Yesterday the Council and the MEPs agreed on the final version of these rules, which means that upon the vote of the European Parliament in April the new law could become reality. (Parliament and Council agree on basic bank accounts for all) 

As a result of these new provisions, EU citizens could not be denied by a bank access to opening a basic payment account - to which they could pay in and withdraw cash from without fee or for a reasonable fee - in a country where they could show they had an interest of doing so (burden of proof should not be set too high). Fees' information should be standardized and transparent, with at least one independent website per country offering clear comparisons of fees charged by various banks. It remains, though, to be seen what form this standardized information will take and what its effects (its level of transparency) will be.

Payments secured

Yesterday it was announced that the European Central Bank supports the new European directive on payment services in the internal market. (see our previous post: Paying your dues - a new package on Payment Services and BEUC's opinion thereon: Money, money, money...) The legal opinion of the ECB will be published shortly in the Official Journal of the European Union, but in the meantime the press release makes it clear that the ECB supports the broadening of the services' list to include payment initiation services (where a third party provider initiates a payment at the request of the payer, e.g. in online purchases) and account information services (providing consolidated information on different accounts, also in different banks, to allow better overview of the client's financial situation). The ECB suggests some improvements that could enhance the security of these new services and boost competition on the market. One of the developments that are encouraged is the creation of a common European standard for safe authentication of consumers. (ECB supports new European directive for electronic payments)

Heigh-Ho Heigh-Ho, It´s Off To Work We Go!

Best wishes for 2014! That being said it is time to leave behind the holidays' spirit and to update our dear readers on what is going on currently in Brussels. Not much, that's the good news for anyone who took a bit of a break - you didn't miss much. However, just before Christmas on the 20th of December the European Council agreed its position on two relevant for consumer protection draft laws.

 

The first one, concerns a draft directive that is to improve the transparency and comparability of information on fees related to payment accounts. (see our previous post Money, money, money...) Upon the Council establishing its position it will now be time to negotiate this directive's provisions with the Parliament. (Council sets out its position on payment accounts)

 

The second measure is a draft regulation to facilitate and speed up the authorisation procedure of clinical trials. The goal of the EU is to encourage more clinical trials (the number thereof decreased by 25% between 2007 and 2011) while at the same time not giving up the necessary standard of patients safety. The timeline for authorisation of clinical trials is to be set at 60 days, with a tacit agreement having been given if no decision is taken within this time (! - I wonder how this is going to play out if/when the administrative bodies will be overloadedCouncil confirms agreement on clinical trials)

). When a clinical trial requires a substantial modification the decision about it will need to be taken in 49 days (again with tacit agreement rule). One single application will suffice to conduct clinical trials in different Member States. The next step in the adoption of these rules lies with the European Parliament. (

Basic bank accounts for all

Yesterday, the European Parliament voted in favour of draft legislation giving anyone legally residing within the EU a right to open a bank account. I quote from the Parliament's press release:

'"In today's world, consumers as well as the retail sector depend upon access to modern payment services. Providing electronic payment services is not very costly, and they can make consumers' lives easier, boost business efficiency and help to modernize our economies. Parliament therefore considers it urgently necessary to require banks to provide these services and empower consumers to make informed choices. Parliament has dealt promptly with this file, and it is now up to EU member states to do likewise, so that we can conclude work on this file in spring next year", said lead MEP Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL, DE), after the vote.'

See also BEUC's press releases: 'Bank account plans: Timid steps towards more transparency' and 'EU paves way for the bank accounts consumers actually need'