Sepa Legal Opinion

`PSU` means a natural or legal person using a payment service as payer or payee; In some Member States, there are some traditional payment services, which are credit transfers or direct debits, but which have very specific functions, often for historical or legal reasons. The volume of transactions for these services is generally marginal. These services could therefore be classified as niche products. A transitional period for these niche products, long enough to minimise the impact of migration on payment service units, should help both market parties to focus initially on migrating the majority of credit transfers and direct debits, so that the majority of the potential benefits of an integrated payments market in the Union can be reaped earlier. In some Member States, there are specific direct debit systems that closely resemble card payment transactions in that the payer at the point of sale uses a card to initiate the payment transaction, but the underlying payment transaction is a direct debit. In these payment transactions, the card shall only be used for reading purposes in order to facilitate the electronic generation of the mandate to be signed by the payer at the point of sale. Although these payment services cannot be classified as a niche product, a transitional period is necessary for these payment services due to the large volume of transactions. In order to allow stakeholders to introduce an adequate replacement for SEPA, that transitional period should be sufficiently long. Brinnon Group v.

Jefferson County, 159 Wn. App. 446 (2011) – A single citation of an environmental policy in support of multiple mitigation conditions may be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in WAC 197-11-660(1) that the basis for a mitigation condition described in an environmental impact statement be supported by a reference to an environmental policy. Nothing in RCW 43.21C.060 that permits mitigation conditions, or WAC 197-11-660(1) that specifies the citation requirement, requires a government agency to separately disclose an environmental policy for each mitigation condition specified in an Environmental Impact Statement. of the rule. King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Vol., 138 Wn.2d 161 (1999) – SEPA directs that “alternatives to the proposed measure” be included in an EIA. In addition, SEPA rules require the examination of “reasonable alternatives”, defined as less environmentally costly measures that could achieve or bring closer to the objectives of a proposal. An alternative considered for EIA purposes does not need to be legally secure or uncontested, it simply needs to be reasonable.

Therefore, consideration of a one-acre subdivision as an alternative to the proposed urban development is permitted, even if the one-acre option is not legally available as an option. `payment service provider` means a payment service provider falling within one of the categories referred to in Article 1(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC and the natural and legal persons referred to in Article 26 of Directive 2007/64/EC, excluding those referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2006/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March. June 2006 on the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (12); benefit from a derogation in accordance with Article 2(3) of Directive 2007/64/EC; The SEPA region comprises 36 European countries, including all EEA countries, Switzerland, San Marino, Monaco, Vatican City/Holy See and Andorra. The SEPA legal framework is based on Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 laying down technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 on cross-border payments in the Community. The benefits of SEPA extend from the company to the customer. This article guides your company through the SEPA application process and explains how to log in to SEPA. `payer` means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and authorises a payment order from that payment account or, in the absence of a payer`s payment account, a natural or legal person who gives a payment order to a payee`s payment account; For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the calculation of R-transaction fees shall only take into account those categories of costs that are directly and clearly relevant for the settlement of transaction R. These costs are clearly defined. The breakdown of the cost amount, including the separate identification of each of their components, is part of the agreement to allow for easy verification and monitoring. Kiewit Construction v. Clark County, 83 Wn.

App. 133 (1996) – Kiewit appealed the County`s decision to require an additional EIS for a proposed asphalt plant or, alternatively, to require Kiewit to construct a ramp connecting the site to a nearby road as a condition of obtaining the permit requested. The county requested the additional EIA because it felt that the initial EIA was inadequate. The court upheld the county`s decision and relied on the rule that the legal character of an EIA is examined on the basis of a principle of reason. According to this rule, an EIA is appropriate if it provides a reasonably thorough discussion of the essential aspects of the likely environmental effects of the proposed activity and contains sufficient information to enable the public decision-maker to make a reasoned choice between alternatives. The court not only held that the additional EIA requirement met this criterion, but also concluded that the approval of the permit was conditional on the construction of a motorway ramp as a valid alternative to the additional EIA requirement. `reference party` means a natural or legal person on whose behalf a payer makes a payment or a payee receives a payment. In order to increase legal certainty, the deadlines for interchange fees set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 should be aligned with the provisions of this Regulation. It is important to provide the payments industry with legal certainty regarding direct debit business models.

The regulation of multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) for direct debits is essential to create a neutral playing field between payment service providers, thus enabling the development of a single market for direct debits. Such fees for transactions that are rejected, rejected, returned or cancelled because they cannot be executed correctly or lead to exception treatment (`R transactions`, where the letter `R` can mean `reject`, `reject`, `return`, `cancel`, `revoke` or `request for cancellation`) could contribute to efficient cost-sharing in the internal market. Therefore, it appears beneficial for the creation of an efficient European direct debit market to prohibit transaction-based MIFs. Nevertheless, R-transaction fees should be allowed provided that they meet certain conditions. Payment service providers shall provide consumers with clear and comprehensible information on R-transaction charges in the interests of transparency and consumer protection. In any event, the rules on R-transactions are without prejudice to the application of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In addition, it should be noted that direct debits and card payments generally have different characteristics, in particular as regards the higher potential of payees to induce payers to use a direct debit through a pre-existing contract between the payee and the payer, whereas for card payments, There is no previous contract of this type and the payment transaction is often an isolated and irregular event. east.

Therefore, the provisions on MIFs for direct debits are without prejudice to the analysis of MIFs for payment card transactions under Union competition rules. Additional optional services shall not be prohibited by this Regulation if they are clearly and unambiguously distinct from basic direct debit services and if payment service providers and payment service units are completely free to offer or use those services. Nevertheless, they remain subject to the competition rules of the Union and the Member States. `payment system` means a single set of rules, practices, standards and/or enforcement guidelines agreed between payment service providers for the execution of payment transactions across the Union and in the Member States, which is distinct from any payment infrastructure or system supporting its operation; `payee` means a natural or legal person who holds a payment account and who is the intended recipient of funds that have been the subject of a payment transaction; Saldin Sec. v. Snohomish County, 134 Wn.2d 288 (1998) – Landowners proposing to develop nearly 100 acres into separate residential subdivisions have filed petitions for constitutional deeds of certiorari to judicially review the County Council`s decision requiring the establishment of a limited EIS on the issue of potential groundwater contamination.