28.1.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

1.1.

With respect to the proposed provisions on the reporting for balance of payments (b.o.p.) purposes, the ECB considers it essential that a solution is found that puts at risk neither the essential user needs for euro area and national balance of payments statistics nor the timely emergence of SEPA.

1.2.

The development of SEPA implies that b.o.p. reporting systems mainly based on payments data cannot be maintained as they are, regarding payments in euro within the EU. The reform of those systems may involve not only substantially lower reporting obligations for banks (3) but also an increase in the reporting burden on non-banks, which should be limited to the extent possible (e.g. by applying proper survey and sampling techniques). At the same time, it should be ensured that b.o.p. statistics can continue to be compiled with the high reliability, frequency and timeliness that are required for ECB monetary policy-making.

1.3.

The ECB welcomes the proposal in Article 5(1) to increase the exemption threshold for b.o.p. reporting to EUR 50 000 and acknowledges that it is already in place in the majority of Member States, which have already fully shifted or have taken steps to collect data by means of alternative sources (administrative data, or surveys/direct reporting) rather than from payments systems, or developed complementary sources to payments data.

1.4.

Large companies play a crucial role in the compilation of b.o.p. statistics. However, they tend to centralise their payments in specialised entities, so that their payments are increasingly disconnected from their economic transactions. As a consequence, these large companies have to be fully covered in a survey-based approach. Smaller entities may be addressed on the basis of sampling.

1.5.

In order to benchmark and to focus the scope of surveys related to b.o.p. reporting, the ECB suggests that other administrative and statistical data sources, such as VAT data files, INTRASTAT, Company Registers and Structural Business Statistics, are enhanced where needed and possible, so that they can be used for the identification of the entities to be surveyed or for collecting information on cross-border transactions. Good practices on the usage of such data may already be exchanged among b.o.p. compilers. Conversely, without prejudice to the burden on respondents, the regulations related to those sources should enable a better identification of cross-border transactions, especially as regards services.

1.6.

The ECB welcomes the introduction of Article 5(3), clarifying that statistical requirements which have no impact on the straight through processing of SEPA payments by payment service providers, and can be fully automated by payment service providers, should not be subject to any exemption threshold.

1.7.

The ECB regards payments data as a potentially useful tool in particular to identify the reporting population to be surveyed, i.e. to set up and maintain a register of internationally active firms (4). This concerns information that is readily available to the banks and that can be supplied to b.o.p. compilers in a fully automated fashion at reasonable intervals, including, on the one hand, the mandatory fields of the SEPA message (including the International Bank Account Numbers (IBANs) of the payer and the payee) and, on the other hand, any other reference data that must be used and/or stored by banks (e.g. for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing purposes), such as the address of the account holders. In turn, these data may be linked to the national statistical business register. This approach should be made possible at the discretion of each national b.o.p. compiler. As it meets the conditions listed in Article 5(3), this approach should not be subject to any reporting threshold.

1.8.

In the future, in the context of SEPA, non-financial entities may choose to hold their bank account with a bank that is resident in another EU country. If and when this happens, the information as defined in Article 5(3) of the proposed regulation, which is based on the assumption that the banks and their account holders generally reside in the same country, may no longer provide a satisfactory assessment of the reporting population. In such a context, and to assist the Commission, the ECB is willing to further assess the extent to which this phenomenon has developed. If it has become significant, the inclusion by the banks of the country of residence of the payer in the SEPA message should be reconsidered (5). This would allow an automatic and unambiguous identification of cross-border payments by the bank of the payee in all cases. This procedure should be applied without a threshold.

1.9.

In order to further alleviate the reporting burden of both financial and non-financial agents, the ECB supports all initiatives that facilitate the exchange of information between b.o.p. compilers, for statistical purposes only. This may require the elimination of legal impediments to the exchange of information among EU statistical authorities, while maintaining the required confidentiality safeguards. To assist the Commission, the ECB would be ready to explore ways forward within this area.

1.10.

Regarding the proposal to remove settlement-based national reporting requirements on payment service providers from 1 January 2012, as stated in Article 5(2) of the proposed regulation, the ECB highlights the need for an interim solution for Member States still relying on settlement-based reporting until a fully harmonised pan-European solution has emerged. Such an interim solution has been discussed within the Eurosystem, resulting in the following proposal by the ECB:

Furthermore the ECB recommends to closely monitor the developments in the coming years, taking into account technical developments in SEPA and developments in statistical collection methods.

2.1.

According to Article 12(1) of the proposed regulation, the Commission must, by December 2012 at the latest, present to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the ECB a report on the use of IBAN and BIC in relation to the automation of payments, accompanied by an appropriate proposal. On the assumption that the aim of this provision is to facilitate and make more efficient the initiation of payments, the ECB would support the possible abolition of the need for retail customers to use the BIC if the use of IBAN only is technically possible, as this would ease the burden of providing two different identifiers.

2.2.

IBAN was introduced as a mandatory requirement for equal charging under Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001 and has, in the ECB's view, proven to be a cornerstone for the standardisation of payments in the context of SEPA as it enhances straight through processing and facilitates the verification of account numbers. The ECB would therefore strongly recommend retaining the mandatory use of IBAN. The ECB further notes that the introduction of a similar standard format for securities accounts comparable with the regime for IBAN could enhance the conflicts of law regime for intermediated securities.

5.1.

The ECB supports the proposed regulation's objective of complying with standards of good legislation and agrees with the introduction of the simplified definition framework. However, a certain overlap seems to exist between the notion of ‘cross-border payments’ and ‘payment transaction’ contained respectively in Article 2(1) and Article 2(7) of the proposed regulation.

5.2.

The ECB is of the opinion that if a defined concept appears in more than one secondary Community legislation, the corresponding definition should, as far as possible, be identical in all such legislation to ensure legal certainty, especially in closely related legal acts. However, there are some divergences between the concept of ‘payment instrument’ as defined in Article 4(23) of the PSD and its equivalent in Article 2(2) of the proposed regulation. In the PSD, reference is made to ‘payment order’ whereas the definition in the proposed regulation refers to ‘payment transaction’. This is unfortunate and could cause confusion, especially since both ‘payment order’ and ‘payment transaction’ are defined concepts in both the proposed regulation and the PSD. The ECB therefore suggests that these two legal acts be aligned with respect to the definition in question.

5.3.

Since the proposed regulation does not contain any provision on transparency of charges corresponding to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, the ECB recommends considering whether a reference should be made in the proposed regulation to the relevant provisions in the PSD in respect of conditions and information requirements for payment services.