We made an old house into a much needed home!
In partnership with the House of Friendship, we have converted our Dorset Street duplex into a dry house for women recovering from substance abuse. This is the first and only home of its kind in Waterloo Region and one of the first in Ontario.
In partnership with the House of Friendship and the Working Centre, we, Emmanuel United Church, converted a duplex into a dry home for women recovering from substance abuse. This is the first dry house for women home in Waterloo Region and one of the first in Ontario.
This name was chosen in memory of Vera Armour, the mother of Judy Astley. Vera was born in Brandon, Manitoba in 1918, and later lived in Hespeler. Vera Armour lived her early life in Hespeler and raised four children in Waterloo Region. She believed in supporting women on their life journey. As a home to support and nurture women on a journey to recovery, Vera's Place is a fitting tribute.
Emmanuel has a long tradition of providing community, shelter and hope in Waterloo through outreach, worship and fellowship. Emmanuel United Church began as an Evangelical United Brethren congregation in Waterloo in 1849 and it is one of the oldest congregations in Waterloo. Emmanuel joined the United Church of Canada in 1968. The Emmanuel Church property hosts a variety of faith communities as well as other community groups on a weekly basis. Emmanuel continues to look outside its walls to be an engaged member of the community.
House of Friendship is a charitable social service agency that annually serves over 42,000 women, men, youth and children living on low income. Program areas include addition services, community services, family services and residential services. The House of Friendship was founded in 1939 and its core values are inspired by Christian faith. Emmanuel United Church is one of many other local service agencies, churches of various religions, and multiple faith groups with whom the House of Friendship works to carry out its mission in Waterloo Region.
The Working Centre was established in the spring of 1982 as a response to unemployment and poverty in downtown Kitchener. The Working Centre's main projects give people access to tools to create their own work combined with continuous ways of learning and co-operating. Emmanuel United Church successfully launched the Bridgeport Café with the help of the Working Centre.


text:
Congratulations! South Tyneside gymnasts enjoy success on world stage
Daniel Prince News
South Shields Football Club would like to congratulate a group of eight gymnasts who did South Tyneside proud in the World Championships this month.
The talented girls, from South Tyneside Gymnastics Centre, all performed excellently in the 25th World Acrobatics Championships, in Putian City, China.
Before the event, South Shields FC Managing Director Michael Orr presented each of the gymnasts with a club scarf to take with them on their trip, and wish them good luck.
All eight of them went on to impress on the world stage.
Kristie Harrington, Sofie Lincoln and Gabrielle Evans became the junior world champions after an amazing gold medal-winning performance in the Women's Trio (13-19 age group).
A great performance by Lauren Said and Vienna Ramsay earned them fifth place in the Women's Pair (12-18 age group).
Meanwhile, three fantastic routines earned Erin Mattinson, Lauren Emmerson and Lucy Atkinson sixth place in a very close competition at the Senior World Championships.
The girls, all from South Tyneside, built on their success at the World Cup last month, when Erin, Lauren and Lucy put in a fine display to secure a much coveted and prestigious gold medal for Great Britain.
The club is run by Ian and Debbie Said, and is based at Temple Park, in South Shields.
Michael Orr, South Shields FC's Managing Director, said: "South Shields Football Club is keen to engage with the South Tyneside community and in particular to champion other sporting successes.
"Having visited the gymnastics centre and witnessed first-hand a training session, it is clear to see the dedication and talent that is being nurtured.
"Ian and Debbie deserve great credit for creating a fantastic facility."
The gymnastics centre is regarded as one of the top four in the country, and has been operated by South Tyneside Gymnastics and Wellbeing Centre Community Interest Company since 2014, following an asset transfer from South Tyneside Council.
The council has been very supportive in helping the centre to run independently, while as a community interest company, all profits are reinvested into the building, facilities and activities for people of all ages and levels of ability.
The dedication of its gymnasts has led to much success, the latest of which came at the World Championships.
Ian Said, a Director of the Gymnastics Centre and gymnastics coach, said: "It's a great achievement by all eight girls which reflects the effort, teamwork, dedication and commitment not just from the girls but their families who support them.
"South Tyneside Gymnastics Club is very proud of what they have achieved together throughout their careers so far and looks forward to the next chapter. Thank you girls: you are a credit to the club."
The gymnasts at the centre train for up to 23 hours a week.
Mr Said added: "We'd love to extend our links with the football club.
"We already train some of the club's junior players helping their balance, agility and core strength, which is great for their football.
"Gymnastics is also a great way to increase resilience to injury."
IMAGE: Peter Talbot.
PICTURE CAPTION:
Back row (left to right): Lauren Emmerson, Erin Mattinson, South Shields FC Managing Director Michael Orr, Sofie Lincoln, Lauren Said.
Front row (left to right): Gabrielle Evans, Kristie Harrington, Lucy Atkinson, Vienna Ramsay.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Comments with effect in Android Studio Recently, while looking over this sample, on this line there is //noinspection unchecked commentary that suppress the warning "Unchecked cast".
What are other such commentaries? So far I only knew that @SurpressLint had such powers.

A: When suppressing an inspection, IntelliJ IDEA inserts a special comment that tells the code analysis engine to ignore the issues found by this inspection in the specific piece of code.
When disabling an inspection, you just turn it off so the code analysis engine just ignores the code issues found by this inspection.
https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/suppressing-inspections.html

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Ex-firefighter charged with throwing fire extinguisher at Capitol officers; man holding Confederate flag in photo arrested
By Associated Press Staff
PHILADELPHIA — A retired Pennsylvania firefighter was arrested Thursday on federal charges that he threw a fire extinguisher that hit Capitol Police officers during the siege on the Capitol last week, and a man pictured carrying a Confederate flag into the seat of federal power was also arrested.
Robert Sanford, who recently retired from the Chester Fire Department, was arrested on charges that include assault of a police officer, disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds, civil disorder and unlawfully entering the Capitol.
The charges against Sanford are not related to the widely publicized attack on Officer Brian Sicknick, who also was attacked with a fire extinguisher during the siege and died.
Court documents did not show whether Sanford has an attorney who can speak on his behalf. A phone number for a listing in his name had been disconnected.
Sanford was being held in Pennsylvania's Lehigh County jail, where he was scheduled to appear via video arraignment Thursday before U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkins, whose courtroom is in Allentown. Authorities said the case will be prosecuted in Washington.
The FBI asked the public this week to help identify a man seen in video stills who wore a hat with the letters CFD, picked up a fire extinguisher and threw it at police outside the Capitol on Jan. 6. According to the charging documents, the extinguisher bounced off the heads of three officers, two of whom wore helmets.
Sanford, 55, traveled by bus with other people to the Capitol, according to documents. He told a friend when he returned home that he had been on the grounds for 10 minutes before leaving but did not mention throwing anything at officers, authorities said.
The friend saw the photos released by federal authorities and contacted police.
Rioters use tear gas and a fire extinguisher while clashing with police and trying to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Prosecutors also said Thursday a Delaware man photographed carrying a Confederate battle flag during the deadly riot has been arrested after authorities used the image to help identify him.
A supporter of President Donald Trump carries a Confederate battle flag inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (Erin Schaff/The New York Times)
A Cleveland school occupational therapist who resigned after the riot was charged Thursday with taking part in the breach.
Christine Priola, 49, was arrested at her home and charged with entering a restricted building, violent entry and unlawful activities on Capitol grounds, said FBI spokeswoman Vicki Anderson.
Trump loyalists, including Giuliani, are spreading misinformation about Capitol riot: 'Antifa and liberal progressives as well as Black Lives Matter'
Court documents don't list an attorney for Priola, and a phone number listed for her has been disconnected.
Priola submitted a resignation letter to the Cleveland Metropolitan School District after social media users linked her to publicly available photos.
Her resignation letter said she was switching careers to focus on exposing human trafficking and pedophilia, citing beliefs that are in line with a conspiracy theory, QAnon, espoused by some Trump supporters.
Federal agents said in court documents that they found a coat, a sign and other items in Priola's home that matched those that she had with her in the Capitol.
Nearly 1.6 million Illinois Facebook users to get about $350 each in privacy settlement


text:
Court Docs: GM Knew Of Cobalt Problem Before Fatal Crashes And Recall
Patrick George
Filed to:Recalls
As General Motors recalls almost 780,000 Chevrolet Cobalts and Pontiac G5s over a faulty ignition switch blamed for engine shutdowns and six crash deaths, court statements have come to light that indicate a top engineer knew about the problem years before the recall was issued.
The issue plaguing the 2005-2007 Cobalt and G5 was this: A heavy key ring or rough roads can move the ignition switch out of the run position, cutting off the engine and electrical power and possibly halting the front airbags from deploying. GM says six fatalities occurred in five front-end crashes.
A technical service bulletin was issued in 2005 that instructed dealers to install a snap-on key cover if owners complained. The car wasn't recalled for a mandatory fix until last week.
But at least one GM engineer knew the 2005 technical service bulletin wasn't good enough, according to court documents obtained by a newspaper.
In a deposition obtained by USA Today in the lawsuit over the 2010 death of crash victim Brooke Melton, Gary Altman, the program engineering manager for the Cobalt, testified that the technical service bulletin was merely an "improvement, it was not a fix to the issue" to the problem. This deposition was given last June.
Even so, he said, "I think that the insert should have been put into the cars, yes."
USA Today also reports that at least one GM engineer encountered the ignition problem while testing the Cobalt in 2004.
GM won't say whether Melton was one of the six people they know died as a result of the Cobalt ignition issue. (To be fair, a GM spokesman also said some of the other fatal crashes involved alcohol or lack of a seatbelt.)
But as the AP reports, each were high-speed, off-the-road front end crashes on unpaved roads. But Melton died in similar circumstances after her ignition failed, lawyers for her family argued, causing her car to crash.
There's also this from the USA Today story:
Melton had taken her car into the dealer for ignition switch problems and just picked it up the day before her fatal crash, Lance Cooper, lawyer for Melton's estate, says. She bought her 2005 Cobalt new in August of 2005.
...[Cooper] had a "black box dump" done, and that is when it was discovered that the ignition key had come out of the "run" position and shut off the engine at the time of the crash. Cooper argues that is what caused Melton to lose control.
Cooper, the attorney for Melton's family, has asked the NHTSA to open an investigation into the timing of the recall.
All of this prompts the question: How much of this could potentially have been avoided had GM issued the recall when their engineers apparently knew about the problem?
This post has been updated to clarify, via a GM spokesman, that the fatal crashes occurred on unpaved roads.


November Online Auction With 2 Estates and Added Consignments - October 27th thru Thursday November 1st 2018 @ 7 p.m.
2 Chafer Tray Holders, 6 Fuel Packs, and 11 Trays.
13 Chafe Tray Inserts (Used).
Restaurant Equipment: Rotary Toaster, Deep Fryer, Over Head Food Warmer.


 Shadow Returns Home Dressed to Hunt!
Southern Paranormal made a trip to Wrapro Graphics on July 2015 to pick up Shadow, SPIs 2106 Mobile Command Unit. Shadow was dropped off last week to Chad Sebren to work his magic! Awesome job Chad! Ready to put our new unit to work with state of the art Ghost Hunting technology at our first of many major hunts, Sloss Furnaces!


text:
Equinix (EQIX) to Expand Eqninix Fabric in Seven Markets by 2021
EQIX
Equinix Inc. EQIX unveiled its plans to expand the company's recently rebranded software-defined interconnection service — Equinix Fabric — to seven markets by 2021. These locations comprise Calgary, Kamloops, Montreal, Mumbai, Philadelphia, Vancouver and Winnipeg, and will increase Equinix Fabric's global footprint to 56 strategic markets.
Notably, Equinix Fabric, formerly known as Equinix Cloud Exchange Fabric, enables businesses to connect between their distributed infrastructure and to any other firms' infrastructure on Platform Equinix.
Given the increasing demand for ecosystem access, infrastructure performance and high-speed network; Equinix Fabric has become the interconnection standard for connecting digital infrastructure across the world. This is demonstrated by 32% year-over-year growth in customer connections to around 27,500 customers in this past year.
Leveraging on this, the company has expanded the presence of Equinix Fabric to seven new markets, making it available in 49 strategic metros across five continents.
Moreover, Equinix has announced a number of new transformative capabilities on Equinix Fabric and Network Edge in a bid to cater to the changing and growing needs of its customers.
Specifically, the company has also made the Silver Peak Unity EdgeConnect virtual SD-WAN appliance available on Network Edge. This enables the company's Network Edge to offer its enterprise customers a full set of industry-leading, vendor-neutral, SD-WAN services with built-in integration to Equinix Fabric.
Further, Network Edge is now available in Seattle and Toronto, facilitating an increasing number of companies to modernize their networks and connect their digital supply chains quickly through Equinix.
Such expansions of the company's virtual network function services ecosystem will likely aid enterprises to create and operate their network infrastructure at Equinix, eliminating a physical deployment. While Network Edge is presently available in 11 metros, the company anticipates expanding the footprint of the same in four additional markets, including Hong Kong, Madrid, São Paulo and Tokyo.
Equinix currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). The company's shares have gained 25.4% as against the real estate market's decline of 4.3% over the past year.
Stocks to Consider
Extra Space Storage Inc.'s EXR Zacks Consensus Estimate for 2020 funds from operations (FFO) per share has moved up 1.6% to $5.06 over the past week. The company currently carries a Zacks Rank of 2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.'s IIPR FFO per share estimate for the current year has been revised upward by 5.8% to $5.11 over the past two months. The company carries a Zacks Rank of 2, currently.
City Office REIT, Inc.'s CIO Zacks Consensus Estimate for ongoing-year FFO per share has moved 2.6% north to $1.20 in a month's time. The company holds a Zacks Rank of 2 at present.
Note: Anything related to earnings presented in this write-up represents funds from operations (FFO) — a widely used metric to gauge the performance of REITs.
Looking for Stocks with Skyrocketing Upside?
Zacks has just released a Special Report on the booming investment opportunities of legal marijuana.
Ignited by referendums and legislation, this industry is expected to blast from an already robust $17.7 billion in 2019 to a staggering $73.6 billion by 2027. Early investors stand to make a killing, but you have to be ready to act and know just where to look.
See the pot stocks we're targeting >>
Equinix, Inc. (EQIX) : Free Stock Analysis Report
Extra Space Storage Inc (EXR) : Free Stock Analysis Report
City Office REIT, Inc. (CIO) : Free Stock Analysis Report
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (IIPR) : Free Stock Analysis Report
Why Pan American Silver, Fortuna Silver Mines, and Coeur Mining Surged Roughly 10% Today
Shares of Pan American Silver (NASDAQ: PAAS), Fortuna Silver Mines (NYSE: FSM), and Coeur Mining (NYSE: CDE) all rose strongly on a bad day for the markets today, up 9.6%, 10.2%, and 8.6%, respectively. In addition, Pan American Silver released its preliminary fourth-quarter production report on Wednesday, and Fortuna released its own report on Tuesday. In the fourth quarter, Pan American mined 19.2 million ounces of silver, versus its guidance of 19 to 20 million ounces.


text:
Q: "Custom command" seems to have no effect in gnome-terminal profile Per this answer I added a custom command in my gnome-terminal profile specifying an rc file as explained in that answer. Specifically, my custom command is /bin/bash --rcfile "/home/dqbydt/.gitplrc". However, it appears to have no effect (the contents of that rc enable powerline, so the prompt changes quite dramatically if the script has been executed). I can source that same rc file manually after the terminal opens, and that does work. So there isn't anything in the rc itself that is suspect.
I have set a new font for that profile and that does change, so the profile itself is indeed getting applied. However the custom command is definitely not getting executed. What can I try? This is on Ubuntu 20.04.


text:
Dump Showdown Over Toxic Soil
By Monica Buchanan	• Published at 11:24 pm on September 27, 2010
NBC Connecticut
Beyond the gate off State Street in Hamden sits Tire Pond. The 29 acre piece of land was once polluted with millions of tires, and now neighbors say it's being polluted again.
"The battle we have going on now is with the DEP, who's supposed to be protecting us, not polluting us," said Joan Maseruk of North Haven.
Tire pond straddles the North Haven/ Hamden line. The DEP took it over 10 years ago and is now working to clean it up by burying the old tires deep underground. The dirt they are using to do it though is coming from the Newhall clean-up project in Hamden.
It's the same dirt that's too toxic for that neighborhood. "I think they have a lot of nerve, dumping it on our tire pond which is abutting the Quinnipiac River," said Maseruk.
Many in North Haven say they are worried about the environmental impact and their health. The DEP, however, says the soil shuffle is legit. Apparently, just because soil isn't suitable for residential use, it's okay for Tire Pond. The main reason for that is because the soil meets all commercial standards.
"This means it doesn't have to be perfect topsoil that you would expect to see at a residential property of at a school, but it does need to be of a good enough quality to meet what is expected at places like shopping centers," said Diana Duva, DEP.
Duva admits the long-term care and monitoring of the property is the responsibility of the landowner who is currently in civil and criminal battles with the state.
Maseruk says she will rally her neighbors in time for the North Haven Inland Wetlands Commission on October 6th. At that meeting, the DEP will continue its public hearing on the matter.


text:
This site is intended for Healthcare professionals only.
Hospitals & Diagnostics
Medical Dialogues
Speciality Dialogues
Business Dialogues
Education Dialogues
by: Md Team
Lack of Evidence: Dr Kafeel Khan finally gets bail after 7 months in Jail
Hospitals & Diagnostics, Latest News, Profession, State News
April 27, 2018	State : Uttar Pradesh
Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court has finally granted bail to Dr. Kafeel Ahmad Khan, one of the accused in the B R D Medical college case of Gorakhpur. Justice Yashwant Verma granted the bail after hearing the counsels representing Khan as well as the state government.
" There is no material on record, which may establish medical negligence against the applicant individually. This quite apart from the fact that no inquiry was also undertaken or initiated,'' stated the court in a detailed order released on Thursday, a day after Khan was granted bail.
The decision came after the government filed an affidavit in the matter
"The Court must also bear in mind that the State in its affidavit and more particularly in paragraph 16 thereof does not attribute the deaths to a shortage of medical oxygen," the court noted. The court further observed that Dr. Khan was"not stated to be part of the tendering process that resulted in the enlistment of the entity, which was charged with the supply of medical oxygen."
Khan was arrested in connection with the death of several children in Baba Raghav Das (BRD) Medical College in Gorakhpur allegedly due to interrupted oxygen supply to the hospital and was in jail for the last seven months.
Over 30 children died at the medical college on August 10-11, last year allegedly due to the disruption in oxygen supply.
The Uttar Pradesh Police Special Task Force (STF) had arrested Khan near Kalesar in Sahjanwa when he was on the way to Gorakhpur. Khan was the nodal officer of acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) in the medical college.
While granting bail to Khan, the court laid down several conditions including that the applicant shall not tamper with the records or documents and that he will not threaten or influence any witnesses in the case.
Read Also: Dr Kafeel Khan Undergoes Medical Checkup; Cries out he was FRAMED
Source: with inputs
2 comment(s) on Lack of Evidence: Dr Kafeel Khan finally gets bail after 7 months in Jail
Share your Opinion Disclaimer
I agree to Terms & Conditions.
Send me the latest Medical News.
Pankaj Akholkar May 12, 2019, 7:30 pm
Just wait and watch even more bad days in store..if medical faternity does not unite…be private or government,doctors are most vulnerable population….
Dr. R. D. Dubey April 28, 2018, 11:27 pm
Dr. Kafeel Khan has got bail. Oxygen supplier has got bail. But Dr. Rajiv Mishra whose only fault was that he was sitting in principal\'s chair when the tragedy occurred, is still in the jail. Allegation against him was disruption of oxygen supply which has been proved wrong, as per the CM\'S statement. Then why is he in jail ? During 8 months of jail he has developed IHD, Non-alcoholic cirrhosis of liver, pulmonary hypertension and esophageal varices which may cause serious complications any time.
Doctor's Month Special Blog: Cherishing the 'Art' in Medical Practice!!
Jul 15, 2019 (0) Md Team
Common Exit Exam for All MBBS Medicos, whether from AIIMS or FMGE candidate: Cabinet Clears NMC Bill
Major Debate in Rajya Sabha over Fund Allocation to AYUSH, Integration with Modern Medicine
Md Team
India to have 40,000 PHCs under Ayushman Bharat by this year: Dr Harsh Vardhan
Steps taken to Control Brain Drain of Doctors, Medicos: Dr Harsh Vardhan apprises Parliament
4,200 AYUSH Wellness Centres to be opened this year: AYUSH Minister Shripad Naik in Rajya Sabha
Haryana: PHCs to be Upgraded, New CHCs to be set up
Doctors attacked by Patient's relative over delay in Hearse: Colleagues observe Flash Strike demanding Security
Submit News/Blog
Select Month July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015
© Copyright 2019 Medical Dialogues
Copyright 2019 Medical Dialogues Medical Dialogues


We want to be your locally owned flooring experts!
We have proudly been in business since 1989 and have performed over 95,000 installations. As part of the world's largest flooring cooperative and buying group, we can compete against the big box stores in regards to price but are able to offer a level of service that is unattainable elsewhere. Whether it's carpet, vinyl, laminate, or hardwood; we would love to help with your project. Commercial and multi-housing is also a specialty of ours. Contact us anytime for more information.


Post graduation he participated in a research internship with Dr. James Marr, Director of Indiana University Department of Nephrology. He entered the Indiana University School of Medicine in 1999 and received the Eli Lilly Rural Health Fellowship. He also completed an Intercambio Humanitarian Mission to Tabi, Mexico. In 2003, he entered residency at Indiana University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery.
Specializes in hand, elbow, and shoulder surgery.


You can create an app in different places. For private apps we recommend using the apps folder in your root project directory.
If you are planning to develop an app for other servers and you want to publish it on PyPi for example, we advise to create your own module folder in your development project root.
You can use the CLI tool to generate an API module for you.
The main entry is the applications config class itself. It is an extended class of the base pyplanet.apps.AppConfig.
You have to create a file named __init__.py in your app module containing the implementation of the config class. Example is bellow.
# Game dependencies. We will check if the current game is in the list (or).
# All the scripted mode file names that are supported by this app.
# Dependencies to other apps.
# We will make sure that the dependent apps are started first!
# Implement the life cycle method if you need them. Make sure you call the super in the methods!
In the same App module you can either create a single models file calling models.py or a module models. When you are using the module method, you need to import all the model files in the models/__init__.py.
Please take a look at the page Define models on how to create model declarations.
Make sure you add your new App to your configuration.
Make sure you enable the DEBUG mode during development, this prevents the PyPlanet team from thinking that your App is giving issues in production environments.
Your ready to get started. Start PyPlanet!


text:
The Evolution of Technology: How Cars Have Changed in the Last Decade
The automotive industry is constantly changing. Technological advancements over the past ten years have dramatically altered how cars look and perform today. Changes in everything from fuel economy to safety, interior features, and even the exterior design have seen modifications over time. What was once considered an extra in a car in the past is now a standard item today.
Moving From Gas to Electric-Powered Vehicles
One of the most notable changes during the past decade is the switch from gasoline-powered engines to electric run cars. While this change isn't for everyone, it is the way of the future as renewable energy sources take center stage. Interest in electric vehicles is steadily gaining in popularity while gas prices for gas-powered vehicles continue to fluctuate up and down. Instead of filling up at a gas pump, an electric car is hooked up and recharged at one of the many ev charging station locations around the country. As more and more electric vehicles make their way into the marketplace, the demand for charging ports will rise accordingly.
While electric vehicles are here to stay, gas-powered cars are making strides toward being more fuel-efficient. The gas-guzzlers that were once popular are no longer the desired item. As people look for environmentally friendly options, car manufacturers have made changes to reduce the number of emissions released into the air. Alternative fuel has also made its way into the market, including ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen, propane, and natural gas.
Advances in Safety Equipment Saves Lives
One of the best technological advances during the past decade was the development of improved safety features. Sure, two seat belts offer front-seat protection, but now most cars include driver and passenger airbags, along with side airbags for maximum protection during an accident. Anti-lock brakes, collision warning systems, and blind-spot information alerts make driving easier while reducing accidents at the same time. Seat belt reminder warnings and anchors for child safety seats come standard in most new vehicles. Some manufacturers have even installed an automatic emergency call system to alert authorities in an emergency. Some countries now require an emergency alert system to be standard on all new vehicles.
Navigation systems also aid with safety. This feature enables a driver to pull up maps, plug in the desired course, and lets the driver listen to verbal instructions. A navigation system offers peace of mind during heavy traffic, unfamiliar locations, and in bad weather.
Streamlined Designs and Added Comfort Complete the Package
The exterior design of vehicles today is streamlined for looks and maximum performance on the road. On the inside, ergonomically designed seating and dashboard design make driving relaxing, especially on long trips. Lumbar support and steering wheel controls keep everything within reach, and who doesn't enjoy a good heated seat? A memory function that automatically adjusts a seat to a favorite setting lets a car owner feel like a king. With so many advances in comfort, getting out on the road is more popular than ever.
From performance to comfort, vehicles today have features that make driving fun. Unlike the gas-guzzling cars of the past, today's vehicles are fuel-efficient, with some using alternative fuels as a power source, such as electricity and natural gas. Modern automobiles are safer, more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly, and easy on the eye. With all a new car has to offer, an investment in a new vehicle is an easy choice to make.
Tags: Evolution of Technology
Travelling in the Age of Internet
The Best Smart Home Essentials for Living a Modern Life
Tips to Secure Your Business with Identity Verification


(7) Preparation of legislation is under way in several Member States21 to regulate interchange fees, covering a number of issues, including caps on interchange fees at various levels, merchant fees, the Honour All Cards rules or steering measures. The existing administrative decisions in some Member States vary significantly. In view of the harmfulness of interchange fees to retailers and consumers, a further introduction of regulatory measures at national level aimed at addressing the level or divergencies of these fees is anticipated. Such national measures would be likely to lead to significant barriers to the completion of the internal market in the area of cards, internet and mobile payments based on cards and would therefore hinder the freedom to provide services.
(7) Preparation of legislation is under way or already completed in several Member States21 to regulate interchange fees, covering a number of issues, including caps on interchange fees at various levels, merchant fees, the Honour All Cards rules or steering measures. The existing administrative decisions in some Member States vary significantly. To make the levels of interchange fees more consistent, a further introduction of regulatory measures at national level aimed at addressing the level of or divergences between these fees is anticipated. Such national measures would be likely to lead to significant barriers to the completion of the internal market in the area of cards, internet and mobile payments based on cards and would therefore hinder the freedom to provide services.
21 Italy, Hungary, Poland and the United Kingdom .
21Italy, Hungary, Poland and the United Kingdom.
(8) Payment cards are the most frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail purchases. However, integration of the Union payment card market is far from complete as many payment solutions cannot develop beyond their national borders or new pan-Union providers are prevented from entering the market. The lack of market integration currently results in higher prices and less choice in payment services for consumers and retailers, and more limited opportunities to take advantage of the internal market. There is therefore a need to remove obstacles to the efficient functioning of the card market, including mobile and internet payments that are based on card transactions which still pose barriers to the deployment of a fully integrated market.
(8) Payment cards are the most frequently used electronic payment instrument for retail purchases. However, integration of the Union payment card market is far from complete as many payment solutions cannot develop beyond their national borders or new pan-Union providers are prevented from entering the market. To take full advantage of the internal market, there is a need to remove obstacles to the integration of new card-payment options, including mobile and internet payments that are based on card transactions.
(9) To enable the internal market to function effectively, the use of electronic payments should be promoted and facilitated to the benefit of retailers and consumers. Cards and other electronic payments can be used in a more versatile manner, including possibilities to pay online in order to take advantage of the internal market and e-commerce, whilst electronic payments also provide retailers with potentially secure payments. Card and card based payments instead of cash use could therefore be beneficial for retailers and consumers, provided the fees for the use of the payment systems are set at an economically efficient level, whilst contributing to innovation and market entry of new operators.
(9) To enable the internal market to function effectively, the use of electronic payments should be promoted and facilitated to the benefit of retailers and consumers. Cards and other electronic payments can be used in a more versatile manner, including possibilities to pay online in order to take advantage of the internal market and e-commerce, whilst electronic payments also provide retailers with potentially secure payments. Card and card based payments instead of cash use could therefore be beneficial for retailers and consumers, provided the fees for the use of the payment systems are set at an economically efficient level, whilst contributing to fair competition, innovation and market entry of new operators.
(10) One of the key practices hindering the functioning of the internal market in card and card-based payments is the widespread existence of interchange fees, which are in most Member States not subject to any legislation. Interchange fees are inter-bank fees usually applied between the card-acquiring payment service providers and the card-issuing payment service providers belonging to a certain card scheme. Interchange fees are a main part of the fees charged to merchants by acquiring payment service providers for every card transaction. Merchants in turn incorporate these card costs in the general prices of goods and services. Competition between card schemes appears in practice to be largely aimed at convincing as many issuing payment service providers (e.g. banks) as possible to issue their cards, which usually leads to higher rather than lower interchange fees on the market, in contrast with the usual price disciplining effect of competition in a market economy. Regulating interchange fees would improve the functioning of the internal market.
(10) In most Member States, interchange fees are not subject to any legislation but, rather, to decisions of the national competition authorities. Interchange fees are inter-bank fees usually passed from card-acquiring payment service providers to card-issuing payment service providers belonging to the relevant scheme. Interchange fees are a main component of the fees charged to merchants by acquiring payment service providers for every card transaction. Merchants in turn incorporate these card costs, like all their other costs, in the general prices of goods and services. Consistent application of the competition rules to interchange fees would reduce transaction costs for consumers and thus improve the functioning of the internal market.
(11) The currently existing wide variety of interchange fees and their level prevent the emergence of 'new' pan Union players on the basis of business models with lower interchange fees, to the detriment of potential economies of scale and scope and their resulting efficiencies. This has a negative impact on retailers and consumers and prevents innovation. As Pan-Union players would have to offer issuing banks as a minimum the highest level of interchange fee prevailing in the market they want to enter it also results in persisting market fragmentation. Existing domestic schemes with lower or no interchange fees may also be forced to exit the market because of the pressure from banks to obtain higher interchange fees revenues. As a result, consumers and merchants face restricted choice, higher prices and lower quality of payment services while their ability to use pan-Union payment solutions is restricted. In addition, retailers cannot overcome the fee differences by making use of card acceptance services offered by banks in other Member States. Specific rules applied by the payment schemes require the application of the interchange fee of the 'Point of Sale' (country of the retailer) for each payment transaction. This prevents acquiring banks from successfully offering their services on a cross border basis. It also prevents retailers from reducing their payment costs to the benefit of consumers.
(11) The currently existing wide variety of interchange fees and their level prevent the emergence of 'new' pan Union players on the basis of business models with lower or no interchange fees, to the detriment of potential economies of scale and scope and their resulting efficiencies. This has a negative impact on retailers and consumers and prevents innovation. As Pan-Union players would have to offer issuing banks as a minimum the highest level of interchange fee prevailing in the market they want to enter it also results in persisting market fragmentation. Existing domestic schemes with lower or no interchange fees may also be forced to exit the market because of the pressure from banks to obtain higher interchange fees revenues. As a result, consumers and merchants face restricted choice, higher prices and lower quality of payment services while their ability to use pan-Union payment solutions is restricted. In addition, retailers cannot overcome the fee differences by making use of card acceptance services offered by banks in other Member States. Specific rules applied by the international card payment schemes require, on the basis of their territorial licensing policies, the application of the interchange fee of the 'Point of Sale' (country of the retailer) for each payment transaction. This prevents acquirers from successfully offering their services on a cross-border basis. It can also prevent retailers from reducing their payment costs to the benefit of consumers.
(15) This Regulation follows a gradual approach. As a first step, it is necessary to take measures to facilitate cross-border issuing and acquiring of payment card transactions. Allowing merchants to choose an acquirer outside their own Member State ('cross border acquiring') and imposing a maximum level of cross border interchange fees for cross border acquired transactions should provide the necessary legal clarity. In addition, licences for issuing or acquiring of payment instruments should be valid without geographic restrictions within the Union. These measures would facilitate the smooth functioning of an internal market for card, internet and mobile payments, to the benefit of consumers and retailers.
(15) In order to facilitate the smooth functioning of an internal market for card, internet and mobile payments, to the benefit of consumers and retailers, this Regulation applies to cross-border and to national issuing and acquiring of payment card transactions. If merchants can choose an acquirer outside their own Member State ('cross-border acquiring'), which will be facilitated by the imposition of the same maximum level of both domestically and cross-border interchange fees for acquired transactions and the prohibition of territorial licensing, it should be possible to provide the necessary legal clarity and to prevent distortions of competition between payment-card systems.
(16) As a consequence of unilateral undertakings and commitments accepted in the framework of competition proceedings, many cross-border card payment transactions in the Union are already carried out respecting the maximum interchanges fees applicable to the first phase of this Regulation. Therefore, the provisions relating to those transactions should enter into force quickly, creating opportunities for retailers to seek cheaper acquiring services cross-border, and incentivising domestic banking communities or schemes to lower their acquiring fees.
(16) As a consequence of unilateral undertakings and commitments accepted in the framework of competition proceedings, many cross-border card payment transactions in the Union are already carried out respecting the maximum interchanges fees. In order to provide for fair competition in the market for acquiring services, the provisions relating to cross-border and to national transactions should apply simultaneously and within a reasonable period after entry into force of this Regulation, taking account of the difficulty and complexity of the migration of payment-card systems, which this Regulation necessitates.
(17) For domestic transactions, a transition period is necessary to provide payment services providers and schemes with time to adapt to the new requirements. Therefore, after a two year period following the entry into force of this Regulation and in order to provide for a completion of an internal market for card-based payments, the caps on interchange fees for consumer card transactions should be extended to cover all, cross-border and domestic payments.
(17) However, a transitional period is necessary to provide payment services providers and schemes with time to adapt to the new requirements. Therefore, after a one-year period following the entry into force of this Regulation and in order to provide for a completion of an internal market for card-based payments, the caps on interchange fees for consumer card transactions should cover all, cross-border and domestic payments.
(18) In order to facilitate cross border acquiring all (cross-border and domestic) 'consumer' debit card transactions and card based payment transaction should have a maximum interchange fee of 0,20% and all (cross-border and domestic) consumer credit card transactions and card based payment transactions based on those should have a maximum interchange fee of 0.30%.
(18) All debit card transactions and card based payment transaction should have a maximum interchange fee of 0,2 % and allcredit card transactions and card based payment transactions based on those should have a maximum interchange fee of 0,3 %.
(18a) The impact assessment shows that a prohibition of interchange fees for debit card transactions would be beneficial for card acceptance, card usage, development of the single market and generate more benefits to merchants and consumers than a cap set at any higher level. Moreover it would avoid negative effects on national systems with very low or zero interchange fees for debit transaction by a higher cap due to cross border expansion or new market entrants increasing fee levels to the level of the cap. A ban on interchange fees for debit card transactions also addresses the threat of exporting the interchange fee model to new, innovative payment services such as mobile and online systems.
(19a) In accordance the basic principles of the internal market, acquirers should be able to provide their services to merchants throughout the Union applying the multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) that they apply in their national market. They should not apply higher MIFs to cross-border transactions than they apply to national transactions.
(22) Payment card transactions are generally carried out on the basis of two main business models, so-called three party payment card schemes (cardholder – acquiring and issuing scheme - merchant) and four party payment card schemes (card holder- issuing bank- acquiring bank- merchant). Many four payment card party schemes are using an explicit interchange fee, mostly multilateral. Interchange fees (fees paid by acquiring banks to incentivise card issuing and card use) are implicit in three party payment card schemes. To acknowledge the existence of implicit interchange fees and contribute to the creation of a level playing field, three party payment card schemes using payment service providers as issuers or acquirers should be considered as four party payment card schemes and should follow the same rules, whilst transparency and other measures related to business rules should apply to all providers.
(22) Payment card transactions are generally carried out on the basis of two main business models, so-called three party payment card schemes (cardholder – acquiring and issuing scheme - merchant) and four party payment card schemes (card holder- issuing bank- acquiring bank- merchant). Many four payment card party schemes are using an explicit interchange fee, mostly multilateral. Interchange fees (fees paid by acquiring banks to incentivise card issuing and card use) are implicit in three party payment card schemes. To acknowledge the existence of implicit interchange fees and contribute to the creation of a level playing field, three party payment card schemes using payment service providers as issuers or acquirers should be considered as four party payment card schemes and should follow the same rules, whilst transparency and other measures related to business rules should apply to all providers. Three-party schemes should accept transactions made using their cards from any acquirer based on general card transaction standards and acquiring rules comparable to the merchant rules for the specific three party schemes and with interchange caps in accordance with this Regulation.
Enforcing general acquiring on three party schemes will make them act as four party schemes in relation to MIF caps and will increase competition regarding acquiring services.
(23) It is important to ensure that the provisions concerning the interchange fees to be paid or received by payment service providers are not circumvented by alternative flows of fees to issuing payment services providers. To avoid this, the 'net compensation' of fees paid and received by the issuing payment service provider from a payment card scheme should be considered as the interchange fee. When calculating the interchange fee, for the purpose of checking whether circumvention is taking place the total amount of payments or incentives received by an issuing payment services provider from a payment card scheme with respect to the regulated transactions less the fees paid by the issuing payment services provider to the scheme should be taken into account. Payments, incentives and fees considered could be direct (i.e. volume-based or transaction-specific) or indirect (including marketing incentives, bonuses, rebates for meeting certain transaction volumes).
(23) It is important to ensure that the provisions concerning the interchange fees to be paid or received by payment service providers are not circumvented by alternative flows of fees to issuing payment services providers. To avoid this, the 'net compensation' of fees paid and received by the issuing payment service provider, including possible authorisation charges, from a payment card scheme should be considered as the interchange fee. When calculating the interchange fee, for the purpose of checking whether circumvention is taking place the total amount of payments or incentives received by an issuing payment services provider from a payment card scheme with respect to the regulated transactions less the fees paid by the issuing payment services provider to the scheme and the monetary incentives or equivalent received by a cardholder from a payment card scheme should be taken into account. All payments, incentives and fees, whether direct (i.e. volume-based or transaction-specific) or indirect (including marketing incentives, bonuses, rebates for meeting certain transaction volumes). In checking circumventions of this Regulation providing for the maximum amount of interchange fees, the profit of payment card issuers that results from special programmes carried out jointly by payment card issuers and payment card schemes, and revenue from processing, licensing and other fees providing revenue to card organisations should, in particular, be taken into account.
(30) For the effective functioning of the limitations to the Honour All Cards Rule certain information is indispensable. First, payees should have the means to identify the different categories of cards. Therefore, the various categories should be identifiable visibly and electronically on the device. Secondly, also the payer should be informed about the acceptance of his payment instrument(s) at a given point of sale. It is necessary that any limitation on the use of a given brand to be announced by the payee to the payer at the same time and under the same conditions as the information that a given brand is accepted.
(30) Payees and payers should have the means to identify the different categories of cards. Therefore, the various categories should be identifiable electronically and for newly issued card based payment instruments also visibly on the device or on the payment terminal. Secondly, also the payer should be informed about the acceptance of his payment instrument(s) at a given point of sale.
(30a) A payment is an agreement between the payer and the payee. In order to ensure that competition between brands is effective, it is important that the choice of payment application be made by users, not imposed by the upstream market, comprising payment card systems, payment service providers or processors. Such an arrangement should not prevent payers and payees from setting a default choice of application, where technically feasible, provided that that choice can be changed for each transaction. If the payee selects an application supported by both, the user should be able to reject it and choose another application.
(31) In order to ensure that redress is possible where this Regulation has been incorrectly applied, or where disputes occur between payment services users and payment services providers, Member States should establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures. Member States should lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and should ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they are applied.
(31) In order to ensure that redress is possible where this Regulation has been incorrectly applied, or where disputes occur between payment services users and payment services providers, Member States should establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures. Member States, following guidelines set up by the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) ('EBA'), established by Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a, should lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and should ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they are applied.
1. This Regulation lays down uniform technical and business requirements for payment card transactions carried out within the Union, where both the payer's payment service provider and the payee's payment service provider are established therein.
1. This Regulation lays down uniform technical and business requirements for card-based payment transactions carried out within the Union, where both the payer's payment service provider and the payee's payment service provider are established therein.
2. This Regulation does not apply to payment instruments that can be used only within a limited network designed to address precise needs through payment instruments only to be used in a limited way, because they allow the specific instrument holder to acquire goods or services only in the premises of the issuer, within a limited network of service providers under a direct commercial agreement with a professional issuer, or because they can be used only to acquire a limited range of goods or services.
2. This Regulation does not apply to payment instruments that can be used only within a limited network designed to address precise needs through payment instruments only to be used in a limited way, because they allow the specific instrument holder to acquire goods or services only in the premises of the issuer, within a limited network of service providers under a direct commercial agreement with a professional issuer, or because they can be used only to acquire a very narrow range of goods or services.
Company cards need to be included, because otherwise consumers would cross-subsidise company cards.
(c) transactions with cards issued by three party payment card schemes.
4a. Articles 6 and 7 shall not apply to domestic debit card schemes that operate with an average interchange fee or net compensation model which is verifiably below the threshold value in Articles 3 and 4.
Cost-efficient domestic debit card schemes that already today operate with an interchange fee level below the threshold proposed by the Commission (0.2 %) can be exempted from the business rules articles 6 and 7 if national authorities decide to opt out. The Commission's impact assessment accompanying the Regulation on Multilateral Interchange Fees (p. 206) indicates that this exemption would be relevant to only a limited number of Member States.
(4) 'debit card transaction' means an card payment transaction included with prepaid cards linked to a current or deposit access account to which a transaction is debited in less than or 48 hours after the transaction has been authorised/initiated.
(5) 'credit transaction by card' means a card based payment transaction which is debited at least two business days after the transaction has been authorised/initiated.
The term 'payment card' is used in the proposal on multiple occasions, for reasons of clarity it seems necessary to provide for such definition.
1. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border debit card transactions a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,2 % of the value of the transaction.
1. With effect from ...* , payment services providers shall not offer or request for debit transactions by card a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than the lower amount of 7 eurocents or 0,2 % of the value of the transaction.
* OJ please insert date: one year after the entry into force of this Regulation.
2. With effect from two months after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for cross-border credit card transactions a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,3 % of the value of the transaction.
2. With effect from ...* , payment services providers shall not offer or request for credit transactions by card a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,3 % of the value of the transaction.
2a. Member States may maintain or introduce lower caps or measures of equivalent object or effect through national legislation.
1. With effect from two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment service providers shall not offer or request a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,2 % of the value of the transaction for any debit card based transactions.
2. With effect from two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment service providers shall not offer or request a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,3 % of the value of the transaction for any credit card based transactions.
5. For the purposes of the application of the caps referred to in Article 3 and Article 4, any net compensation received by an issuing bank from a payment card scheme in relation to payment transactions or related activities shall be treated as part of the interchange fee.
For the purposes of the application of the caps referred to in Article 3, any net compensation received by an issuing payment service provider in relation to payment transactions shall be treated as part of the interchange fee.
Competent authorities shall prevent any attempts by the payment service providers to circumvent this Regulation, including the issuance of payment cards in third countries.
4a. Any restriction of the provision of payment-related services in payment card schemes rules shall be prohibited, unless it is non-discriminatory and objectively necessary to operate the payment scheme.
For cross-border transactions, the interchange fee applicable shall be that of the country of the acquirer.
To allow the single market to operate most effectively, it is necessary to ensure that the interchange fee applied for all transactions is that of the member state in which the acquirer is situated. This will facilitate competition below capped rates where these are applicable.
2. Payment card schemes shall allow for the possibility that authorisation and clearing messages of single card transactions be separated and processed by different processing entities.
2. Payment card schemes and issuers shall allow for the possibility that authorisation and clearing messages of single card transactions be separated and processed by different processing entities. Scheme rules and rules in licensing agreements or other contracts leading to a restriction on the freedom to choose a processor shall be prohibited.
4. Processing entities within the Union shall ensure that their system is technically interoperable with other systems of processing entities within the Union through the use of standards developed by international or European standardisation bodies. In addition, processing entities shall not adopt or apply business rules that restrict interoperability with other processing entities within the Union.
4. By ...* processing entities within the Union shall ensure that their system is technically interoperable with other systems of processing entities within the Union through the use of standards developed by international or European standardisation bodies. In addition, processing entities shall not adopt or apply business rules that restrict interoperability with other processing entities within the Union.
4a. After consulting an advisory panel as referred to in Article 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010a and in order to ensure consistent harmonisation of this Article, EBA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards establishing requirements to be complied with by payment systems, payment schemes and processing entities to ensure a fully open and competitive card processing market.
The requirements referred to in the first subparagraph shall enter into force by ...*** and shall be updated on a regular basis as appropriate.
* OJ please insert date: one year after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
*** OJ please insert date: two years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
4b. Member States may exempt newly established card-based payment schemes from applying this Article for a limited period of time by way of derogation from Articles 1 to 4b after consulting the Commission.
It is important to remember newly created payment schemes, which will be exposed to high costs for their business activity, disproportional to their vulnerable market position against already existing major card schemes. Such provision, for a limited period of time would help to build effective competition environment on the market of card based payment transactions.
1. Any schemes rules and rules in licensing agreements that hinder or prevent an issuer from co-badging two or more different brands of payment instruments on a card, telecommunication, digital or IT device shall be prohibited.
1. Any schemes rules and rules in licensing agreements or measures of equivalent effect that hinder or prevent an issuer from co-badging two or more different brands of payment instruments on a card, telecommunication, digital or IT device shall be prohibited.
1a. When entering into a contractual agreement with a payment services provider, the consumer may decide to have two or more different brands of payment instruments on a payment card, telecommunication, digital or IT device. In good time before the contract is signed, the payment service provider shall provide the consumer with clear and objective information on all the payment brands available and their characteristics, including their functionality, cost and security.
2. Any difference in treatment of issuers or acquirers in schemes rules and rules in licensing agreements concerning co-badging on a card, telecommunication, digital or IT device shall be objectively justified and non-discriminatory.
2. Any difference in treatment of issuers or acquirers in schemes rules and rules in licensing agreements concerning co-badging or equivalent co-residing of different brands or applications on a card, telecommunication, digital or IT device shall be objectively justified and non-discriminatory.
3. Payment card schemes shall not impose reporting requirements, obligations to pay fees or other obligations with the same object or effect on card issuing and acquiring payment services providers for transactions carried out with any device on which their brand is present in relation to transactions for which their scheme is not used.
3. Payment card schemes shall not impose reporting requirements, obligations to pay fees or similar obligations with the same object or effect on card issuing and acquiring payment services providers for transactions carried out with any device on which their brand is present in relation to transactions for which their scheme is not used.
4. Any routing principles aimed at directing transactions through a specific channel or process and other technical and security standards and requirements with respect to the handling of more than one payment card brand on a card, telecommunication, digital or IT device shall be non-discriminatory and shall be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
4. Any routing principles or equivalent measures aimed at directing transactions through a specific channel or process and other technical and security standards and requirements with respect to the handling of more than one payment card brand or equivalent on a card, telecommunication, digital or IT device shall be non-discriminatory and shall be applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
6. Payment card schemes, issuers, acquirers and payment card handling infrastructure providers shall not insert automatic mechanisms, software or devices on the payment instrument or at equipment applied at the point of sale which limit the choice of application by the payer when using a co-badged payment instrument.
6. Payment card schemes, issuers, acquirers and payment card handling infrastructure providers shall not insert automatic mechanisms, software or devices on the payment instrument or on equipment applied at the point of sale which limit the choice of application by the payer and the payee when using a co-badged payment instrument. Payees shall retain the option of installing automatic mechanisms in the equipment used at the point of sale which make a priority selection of a particular brand or application. However, payees shall not prevent the payer, for the categories of cards or related payment instruments accepted by the payee, from overriding an automatic priority selection made by the payee in its equipment.
1. Acquirers shall offer and charge payees individually specified merchant service charges for different categories and different brands of payment cards unless merchants request in writing acquiring payment services providers to charge blended merchant services charges.
1. Acquirers shall offer and charge payees individually specified merchant service charges for different categories and different brands of payment cards with different interchange fee levels unless merchants request in writing acquiring payment services providers to charge blended merchant services charges.
1. Payment schemes and payment service providers shall not apply any rule that may oblige payees accepting cards and other payment instruments issued by one issuing payment service provider within the framework of a payment instruments scheme to also accept other payment instruments of the same brand and/or category issued by other issuing payment service providers within the framework of the same scheme, except if they are subject to the same regulated interchange fee.
1. Payment schemes and payment service providers shall not apply any rule that may oblige payees accepting cards and other payment instruments issued by one issuing payment service provider within the framework of a payment instruments scheme to also accept other payment instruments of the same brand and/or category issued by other issuing payment service providers within the framework of the same scheme, except if they are subject to the same interchange fee which, moreover, complies with the caps set under this Regulation.
This amendment makes it clear that a merchant who accepts payment card A with an interchange payment below the cap imposed is required to accept payment card B only if exactly the same interchange payment applies to it. It is not enough, therefore, that both payment cards should entail an interchange payment below the imposed cap. This also enables the merchant to stimulate competition among the regulated caps by refusing a given payment card.
4. Issuing payment service providers shall ensure that their payment instruments are visibly and electronically identifiable, enabling payees to identify unequivocally which brands and categories of prepaid, debit, credit or commercial cards or card based payments based on these are chosen by the payer.
4. By ...* , issuing payment service providers shall ensure that their payment instruments are electronically identifiable, and, in the case of their newly issued card-based payment instruments, also visibly identifiable, enabling payees and payers to identify unequivocally which brands and categories of prepaid, debit, credit or commercial cards or card based payments based on these are chosen by the payer.
* OJ please insert date: once year after the entry into force of this Regulation.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are without prejudice to the rules on charges, reductions or other steering set out in Article 55 of the proposal COM (2013)547 and in Article 19 of Directive 2011/83/EU22 .
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article are without prejudice to the rules on charges, reductions or other steering set out in Article 55 of Directive 2014/.../EU [PSD and in Article 19 of Directive 2011/83/EU22 .
22 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
It is important to clarify that the reference should not be to the rules proposed by the Commission, but to the final text.
2a. When entering into a contractual agreement with a payment services provider, the consumer shall also be provided with clear and objective periodical information about the payment characteristics and payment fees applied to payment transactions.
1. Member States shall lay down rules on the sanctions applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are applied. Such sanctions shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
1. Member States shall lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are applied. EBA may issue guidelines in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 in order to ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
1. Member States shall establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures for the settlement of disputes arising under this Regulation between payees and their payment service providers. For those purposes, Member States shall designate existing bodies, where appropriate, or establish new bodies.
1. Member States shall establish independent, adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures for the settlement of disputes arising under this Regulation between payees and their payment service providers. For those purposes, Member States shall designate existing bodies, where appropriate, or establish new bodies. Payment service providers shall adhere to at least one alternative dispute resolution body.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those bodies by two years after the entry into force of this Regulation. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent change concerning those bodies.
2. Member States shall notify the Commission of those bodies by ... *[two months after the entry into force of this Regulation]. They shall notify the Commission without delay of any subsequent change concerning those bodies.
2a. Member States shall ensure that payment service providers participate in complaints procedures pursuant to paragraph 1.
Four years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Regulation. The Commission's report shall look in particular at the appropriateness of the levels of interchange fees and at steering mechanisms such as charges, taking into account the use and cost of the various means of payments and the level of entry of new players and new technology on the market.
(f) the effects of co-badging on user-friendliness, in particular for the elderly and other vulnerable users.
* OJ please insert date: two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
One of the indicators of a country's economic development is the level of non-cash transactions in the market. Statistics show that developed countries are also leaders in online payments or cards issuing and a variety of financial services is accessible for all citizens. These countries actively promote the use of payment card systems for buying goods and services on-line while making the consumers choice broader and contributing to a well-functioning economy. Cashless transactions play a crucial role in the functioning of economies because they are a quick, safe and innovative, One of the key practices hindering the achievement of an integrated European market is the widespread use of 'four party' schemes, which is translated in the market by the existence of so-called Multilateral Interchange Fees (MIFs). These are collectively agreed inter-bank fees usually between the acquiring payment service providers and the issuing payment service providers belonging to a certain scheme. Such interchange fees paid by acquiring payment service providers form part of the fees they charge to merchants, who in turn pass them on to consumers. Thus, high Interchange Fees paid by merchants result in higher final prices for goods and services. It needs to be noted that consumers are often unaware of the fees paid by the merchants and at the same time various incentives are used by issuers to encourage them towards the use of such payment instruments which generate higher fees for issuing payment service providers. Interchange fees also restrict market entry as their revenues for issuing payment service providers function as a minimum threshold to convince issuing payment service providers to issue payment cards or other payment instruments, such as online and mobile payment solutions, offered by new entrants. Finally, the variety of interchange fees applied within national and international payment card schemes gives rise to market fragmentation and prevents retailers and consumers from enjoying the benefits of the internal market.
The proposed regulation will improve the conditions for the functioning and development of the internal market in payments. Barriers identified by the Commission for further integration of the internal market in payments and appropriate approach to solve this problem will contribute to positive economic effects for the EU. The proposal is divided into two main parts. The first part introduces rules on interchange fees. With regard to such fees the proposal creates a 'regulated' and a 'non-regulated' area. The regulated area consists of all card transactions that are widely used by consumers and therefore difficult to refuse by retailers, i.e. consumer debit and credit card, and card based payment transactions. The non-regulated area consists of all payment card transactions and card based payment transactions based on those that fall outside the regulated area including cards issued by three party schemes.
In light of the above, it is desirable that adequate conditions for the development of card acceptance network be established within the EU, which is undoubtedly the aim of the proposed Regulation on interchange fees for card based payment transactions. Most certainly, the adoption of Union-wide caps on interchange fees for internal and cross-border transaction constitutes an important step towards improving the functioning of the internal market as well as the realisation of the principle of free movement of goods, persons, services and capital in the EU with a specific focus on the consumer. Although the Rapporteur acknowledges the idea of introduction of caps on interchange fees in Chapter II of this Regulation, he restricts himself the right to introduce further changes to articles 3 and 4 of the proposed Regulation.
However, it is essential that adequate means be provided to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed regulation, which will prevent the circumvention of the proposed prohibition. The Rapporteur is convinced that in line with Commission's principle of technological neutrality, as indicated in the Digital Agenda, this Regulation should apply to card based payment transactions regardless of the environment in which the transactions take place, including through retail payment instruments and services which can be off-line, on-line or transactions executed with commercial cards.
The market of payment transactions undergoes rapid changes, therefore the Rapporteur believes the review clause of article 16 should be shortened to allow to the Commission, and, if appropriate, to legislators a timely examination of the application of this Regulation taking into account new market developments, the level of entry of new players and newly accessible technologies. The Rapporteur wishes to draw attention in this respect to the fact that innovative mobile payments, which rise in the market are justifiably not covered by the proposed Regulation and the development of such innovative instruments should also be looked at in the report referred to in article 16.
Finally, the Rapporteur believes that newly created payment card schemes, which can be exposed to high costs for the business activity, not proportional to the vulnerable market position against already existing major card schemes, should have a possibility to be exempted from the application of Article 7 of this Regulation, for a limited period of time, following the decision of a Member State and after the consultation with the Commission. This would help to build effective competition environment in the market of card based payment transactions.
(7) Preparation of legislation is under way or already completed in several Member States21 to regulate interchange fees, covering a number of issues, including caps on interchange fees at various levels, merchant fees, the Honour All Cards rules or steering measures. The existing administrative decisions in some Member States vary significantly. In view of the harmfulness of interchange fees to retailers and consumers, a further introduction of regulatory measures at national level aimed at addressing the level or divergencies of these fees is anticipated. Such national measures would be likely to lead to significant barriers to the completion of the internal market in the area of cards, internet and mobile payments based on cards and would therefore hinder the freedom to provide services.
(10) One of the key practices hindering the functioning of the internal market in card and card-based payments is the widespread existence of interchange fees, which are in most Member States not subject to any legislation. Interchange fees are inter-bank fees usually passed from card-acquiring payment service providers to card-issuing payment service providers belonging to the relevant scheme. Interchange fees are a main component of the fees charged to merchants by acquiring payment service providers for every card transaction. Merchants in turn incorporate these card costs in the general prices of goods and services. Competition between card schemes appears in practice to be largely aimed at convincing as many issuing payment service providers (e.g. banks) as possible to issue their cards, which usually leads to higher rather than lower interchange fees on the market, in contrast with the usual price disciplining effect of competition in a market economy. Regulating interchange fees would improve the functioning of the internal market.
(15) This Regulation follows a gradual approach. As a first step, it is necessary to take measures to facilitate cross-border issuing and acquiring of payment card transactions. Allowing merchants to choose an acquirer outside their own Member State ('cross border acquiring') and imposing a maximum level of cross border interchange fees for cross border acquired transactions should provide the necessary legal clarity. In addition, licences for issuing or acquiring of payment instruments should be valid without geographic restrictions within the Union. These measures would facilitate the smooth functioning of an internal market for card, internet and mobile payments, to the benefit of consumers and retailers.
(15) In order to facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market for card, internet and mobile payments to the benefit of consumers and retailers, it is necessary to take measures to facilitate cross-border issuing and acquiring of payment card transactions. Allowing merchants to choose an acquirer outside their own Member State ('cross border acquiring') and imposing a maximum level of interchange fee for both cross border and domestic acquired transactions should provide the necessary legal clarity. In addition, licences for issuing or acquiring of payment instruments should be valid without geographic restrictions within the Union.
(16) As a consequence of unilateral undertakings and commitments accepted in the framework of competition proceedings, many cross-border card payment transactions in the Union are already carried out respecting the maximum interchanges fees. In order to provide for fair competition in the market of acquiring services all the provisions relating to domestic and cross-border card based transactions should enter into force at the same time and within a reasonable period to allow sufficient time for market adaptation.
(17) It is necessary to introduce a transition period to provide payment services providers and schemes with time to adapt to the new requirements. Therefore, after a one year period following the entry into force of this Regulation and in order to provide for a completion of an internal market for card-based payments, the caps on interchange fees should apply.
(23) It is important to ensure that the provisions concerning the interchange fees to be paid or received by payment service providers are not circumvented by alternative flows of fees to issuing payment services providers. To avoid this, the "net compensation" of fees paid and received by the payment service provider from a payment card scheme should be considered as the interchange fee. When calculating the interchange fee, for the purpose of checking whether circumvention is taking place the total amount of payments or incentives received by a payment services provider from a payment card scheme with respect to the regulated transactions less the fees paid by the payment services provider to the scheme should be taken into account. Payments, incentives and fees considered could be direct (i.e. volume-based or transaction-specific) or indirect (including marketing incentives, bonuses, rebates for meeting certain transaction volumes, or various processing and licencing fees which do not constitute a direct income of the payment service provider). Moreover gains resulting from programmes conducted jointly by card issuers and payment service providers and issuers' profits resulting from payment card based transactions executed under the agreement with another card issuer should also be included while determining if any circumvention of provisions of this Regulation took place.
The precision is useful for reasons of clarity as issuer is not always an acquirer. Moreover, it should be clarified what other net profits the provision of Article 5 applies to.
(24) Consumers tend to be unaware of the fees paid by merchants for the payment instrument they use. At the same time, a series of incentivising practices applied by issuing payment service providers (such as travel vouchers, bonuses, rebates, charge backs, free insurances, etc.) may steer consumers towards the use of payment instruments generating high fees for issuing payment service providers. To counter this, the measures imposing restrictions on interchange fees should only apply to payment cards that have become mass products and merchants generally have difficulty refusing due to their widespread issuance and use (i.e. consumer debit and credit cards). In order to enhance effective market functioning in the non-regulated parts of the sector and to limit the transfer of business from the regulated to the non-regulated parts of the sector, it is necessary to adopt a series of measures, including separation of scheme and infrastructure, steering of the payer by the payee and enable selective acceptance of payment instruments by the payee.
(24) Consumers tend to be unaware of the fees paid by merchants for the payment instrument they use. At the same time, a series of incentivising practices applied by issuing payment service providers (such as travel vouchers, bonuses, rebates, charge backs, free insurances, etc.) may steer consumers towards the use of payment instruments generating high fees for issuing payment service providers. In order to enhance effective market functioning it is necessary to adopt a series of measures, including separation of scheme and infrastructure, steering of the payer by the payee and enable selective acceptance of payment instruments by the payee.
(29) The Honour all Cards Rule is a twofold obligation imposed by issuing payment services providers and payment card schemes on payees to, on the one hand, accept all the cards of the same brand ('Honour all Products' - element), irrespective of the different costs of these cards, and on the other hand irrespective of the individual issuing bank which has issued the card ('Honour all Issuers' –element). It is in the interest of the consumer that for the same category of cards the payee cannot discriminate between issuers or cardholders, and payments schemes and payment service providers can impose such obligation on them. Therefore, although the 'Honour all Issuers' element of the Honour all Cards Rule is a justifiable rule within a payment card system, since it prevents that payees from discriminating between the individual banks which have issued a card, the 'Honour all Products' element is essentially a tying practice that has the effect of tying acceptance of low fee cards to acceptance of high fee cards. A removal of the 'Honour all Products' element of the Honour All Cards Rule would allow merchants to limit the choice of payment cards they offer to low(er) cost payment cards only, which would also benefit consumers through reduced merchants' costs. Merchants accepting debit cards would then not be forced also to accept credit cards, and those accepting credit cards would not be forced to accept commercial cards. However, to protect the consumer and his ability to use the payment cards as often as possible, merchants should be obliged to accept all cards that are subject to the same regulated interchange fee. Such a limitation would also result in a more competitive environment for cards with interchange fees not regulated under this Regulation, as merchants would gain more negotiating power as regards the conditions under which they accept such cards.
(29) The Honour all Cards Rule is a twofold obligation imposed by issuing payment services providers and payment card schemes on payees to, on the one hand, accept all the cards of the same brand ('Honour all Products' - element), irrespective of the different costs of these cards, and on the other hand irrespective of the individual issuing bank which has issued the card ('Honour all Issuers' –element). It is in the interest of the consumer that for the same category of cards the payee cannot discriminate between issuers or cardholders, and payments schemes and payment service providers can impose such obligation on them. Therefore, although the 'Honour all Issuers' element of the Honour all Cards Rule is a justifiable rule within a payment card system, since it prevents that payees from discriminating between the individual banks which have issued a card, the 'Honour all Products' element is essentially a tying practice that has the effect of tying acceptance of low fee cards to acceptance of high fee cards. A removal of the 'Honour all Products' element of the Honour All Cards Rule would allow merchants to limit the choice of payment cards they offer to low(er) cost payment cards only, which would also benefit consumers through reduced merchants' costs. Merchants accepting debit cards would then not be forced also to accept credit cards. However, to protect the consumer and his ability to use the payment cards as often as possible, merchants should be obliged to accept all cards that are subject to the same regulated interchange fee.
(31) In order to ensure that redress is possible where this Regulation has been incorrectly applied, or where disputes occur between payment services users and payment services providers, Member States should establish adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures. Member States, following guidelines set up by the European Banking Authority, should lay down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of this Regulation and should ensure that those penalties are effective, proportionate and dissuasive and that they are applied.
1. This Regulation lays down uniform technical and business requirements for card based payment transactions carried out within the Union, where both the payer's payment service provider and the payee's payment service provider are established therein.
The wording needs to be clarified to be in line with Commission's principle of technological neutrality, as indicated in the Digital Agenda and in Recital 21, 'this Regulation should apply to card based payment transactions regardless of the environment in which this transaction takes place, including through retail payment instruments and services which can be off-line, on-line or mobile'.
There is no economic justification for different treatment of commercial cards.
(c) transactions with cards issued under three party payment card schemes.
(4) 'debit card transaction' means an card payment transaction included with prepaid cards linked to a current or deposit access account to which a transaction is debited in less than or 48 hours after the transaction has been authorised/initiated.
(4) 'debit card transaction' means a card payment transaction including prepaid cards linked to a current or deposit access account to which a transaction is debited immediately and in any case no longer than within two business days after the receipt of the payment order by the issuer.
The definition is not necessary since commercial cards are to be covered by the Regulation.
1. With effect from one year after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for debit card based payment transactions a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,2 % of the value of the transaction.
2. With effect from one year after the entry into force of this Regulation, payment services providers shall not offer or request for credit card based payment transactions a per transaction interchange fee or other agreed remuneration with an equivalent object or effect of more than 0,3 % of the value of the transaction.
2a. Member States shall be able to maintain or introduce lower caps or measures of equivalent object or effect through national legislation.
The MIFs cap should not result in current domestic schemes or new entrants with lower MIFs to increase these to the level of the cap. The proposed cap should not harm well-functioning national markets which will only have a detrimental impact on consumers.
For the purposes of the application of the caps referred to in Article 3 and Article 4, any net compensation received by an issuing bank from a payment card scheme in relation to payment transactions or related activities shall be treated as part of the interchange fee.
For the purposes of the application of the caps referred to in Article 3 and Article 4, any net compensation received by a payment service provider from a payment card scheme in relation to payment transactions or related activities shall be treated as part of the interchange fee. The acquirer should only be charged the amount as stipulated in this regulation.
In order to prevent payment card schemes from increasing charges like licensing, authorisation etc. which would then be passed on to retailers and consumers, the regulation should be clarified.
4a. Member States may provide, by way of derogation and having consulted the Commission that this article does not apply to newly established card based payment schemes for a limited period of time.
It is important to remember about the newly created payment schemes, which will be exposed to high costs for their business activity, unproportional to their vulnerable market position against already existing major card schemes. Such provision, for a limited period of time would help to build effective competition environment on the market of card based payment transactions.
1a. When entering into a contractual agreement with a payment service provider, the consumer shall be given the possibility to decide whether or not he needs two or more different brands of payment instruments on his card, telecommunication, digital or IT device. Before signing the contract, the payment service provider shall provide the consumer with clear and objective information on the payment brands available and their characteristics related to use, functionalities, cost and security.
6. Payment card schemes, issuers, acquirers, merchants and payment card handling infrastructure providers shall not insert automatic mechanisms, software or devices on the payment instrument or at equipment applied at the point of sale which limit the choice of application by the payer when using a co-badged payment instrument.
2a. Any reduction in interchange fees under Articles 3 and 4 of this Regulation or decided on by the competent authorities referred to under Article 13 must be accompanied by an at least equivalent reduction in merchant service charges payable by recipients to acquiring service payment providers.
This regulation will have no impact if acquirers fail to pass on interchange fee reductions to merchants.
2. Contracts between acquirers and payees shall include a provision that the information referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be provided or made available periodically, at least once a month, and in an agreed manner which allows payees to store and reproduce information unchanged.
It would be important for all Member States to go in the same direction when laying down rules on the sanctions applicable to infringements of this Regulation in order to ensure level playing field.
1. Member States shall establish independent, adequate and effective out-of-court complaint and redress procedures for the settlement of disputes arising under this Regulation between payees and their payment service providers. For those purposes, Member States shall designate existing bodies, where appropriate, or establish new bodies.
1a. Payment service providers shall adhere to one or more Alternative Dispute Resolution bodies.
Two years after the entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the application of this Regulation. The Commission's report shall look in particular at the appropriateness of the levels of interchange fees and at steering mechanisms such as charges, taking into account the use and cost of the various means of payments, the level of entry of new players and new technology on the market and the impact on the functioning of the internal market of implicit interchange fees applied within three party payment card schemes and, if necessary, present a legislative proposal seeking to alleviate possible negative effects thereof.
It is necessary that the Commission examines the first impacts of the Regulation on the payment market sooner than after four years since this market undergoes rapid developments.
Three party payment fees can be substantial, far exceeding those applicable to four party payment cards. It is therefore necessary to investigate their impact on internal market transactions and the need to adopt legislation in this area.