Jump to content

Talk:Single Euro Payments Area/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Decision

The article describes this as an "initiative" and says the "project aims to..." but offers no explanation of when governments will (or have already) vote or debate to decide whether or not this will actually be put into place. If a decision has already been made, it would be helpful to see a paragraph or so on the process of when it was introduced, by whom, who supported or opposed and on what basis, and by what process over what timeline was the decision finally made. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Other currencies?

The map also includes countries that don't use the euro (UK, Norway, Sweden, Baltic states, Poland, etc.). Does someone know how that would work in those countries? Would their currencies be linked to SEPA too somehow, or does it only concern euro transactions in those countries (and how would that work)? Or are they just symbolically in the SEPA? Mtcv 14:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Only euro transactions to/from/between/within those countries will go through SEPA. Other transactions will go through the usual national systems. Even if the euro isn't the national currency, people may still wish to make euro transfers, mainly for international transactions. (212.247.11.155 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

So really referring to the area it applies to as the Eurozone (specifically countries which are using the Euro) is technically incorrect isn't it? If it can be used anywhere within the EEA... Stonegate101 (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wrong. SEPA still applies if someone wants to send an amount of euros from a bank account in Norway to a bank account in the UK, for example. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

After reading all this I contacted the Financial Services Authority in the UK, who regulate the banks. They told me that it ONLY applies in the area where the euro is used, and not to the UK. Roger Pearse (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roger, unfortunately, your information is partially wrong: although it is true the UK banks do not participate in the SEPA project (unless someones bring any contradictory info), SEPA is available to non-Euro currency country. For example Switzerland with the Swiss Franc, which is a full member of SEPA (www.sepa.ch). So SEPA is applicable to non Euro countries, providing the bank institutions approach the groupment. Let me add it is also available to countries that use the euro and that are not part of the "Eurozone" as such, for example Monaco (remember the Eurozone is limited to only the EU countries using the euro, and is not actually the exhaustive list of all countries using the Euro). Pierremc (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Overview

Second paragraph - "Direct debits will not be available until 2009. This will put severe pressure on the second milestone." Should this now be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.28.84 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Vatican and San Marino

Currently it is written: "Vatican City and San Marino which use the Euro by agreement with the EU will be part of SEPA[citation needed since Aug2009]."

I added "As of May 2010 they both aren't and the Vatican City isn't even using IBAN.[6]", but I propose changing the unsourced material to "San Marino and Vatican City are not part of SEPA" unless we really have a source showing their intention to use it in the future. Alinor (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions in misconceptions section

The "misconceptions" section contains a couple of errors.

The European Parliament merely mandated that a bank charge the same amount for local/national wires as for SEPA wires (which may be transnational).

Not correct. The European Parliament mandated national and international transactions in euros should be subject to the same fee. The "in euros" part is particularly relevant for countries such as Denmark and the UK where most national transactions are not in euros. A national transaction in pounds may be subject to one fee while a national transaction in euros may be subject to a different fee. For this reason, Danish and British banks are able to charge much more for international euro transfers than for national crown/pound transfers, since they also charge the same high fees for national euro transfers. Sweden is in a separate position because of Swedish law 2002:598 which equals transaction fees for Swedish crowns and euros (although only on the Swedish side), but maybe this is going too much into detail.

Error number two: The section refers to EU regulation 2560/2001, which has subsequently been replaced by EU regulation 924/2009, but the section suggests that the first regulation would still be in force.

Error number three: I'm not sure about EU regulation 924/2009, but according to EU regulation 2560/2001, the part about equal fees only applies to the European Economic Area and not to Switzerland, Monaco or non-EU parts of France. The Vatican City State and San Marino (which are supposed to become a part of SEPA later) are not covered by the 2001 regulation either. Nordea[1] seems to charge more for Swiss euro transfers than for French ones (but the fine print doesn't mention Liechtenstein either, which must be illegal). I believe that the Swiss parliament implemented regulation 2560/2001 in Swiss law but that this implementation doesn't affect fees on the EU side. (Stefan2 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

SWIFT

How does this relate to SWIFT? Anyone in the know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.158.129 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

SWIFT is the financial messaging network or the conduit for SEPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmicsailor (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The payments podcast link at the bottom of the article page requires neither registration nor subscription and is purely editorial, free to access and factual in its content. As such it obeys the Wikipedia guidelines and is a useful external resource. Please do not remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.54.126 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 27 July 2007

NO ! SWIFT is not THE conduit for SEPA, but A conduit for SEPA. Participants (Banks, Payments Institutions) are free to choose their connectivity method to the scheme. This include all usual connectivity options (EBICS, leased line, proprietary, etc). Nice wikipedia SWIFT sales trick BTW ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJromT (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

2 to 3% of GDP?

That seems like an awful lot for just the transaction costs of international transfers. Could the source be wrong? Alch0 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Banks in the United Kingdom appear to be evading the legislation. Local transfers are free, but transfers to Europe are always at premium prices. Lloyds TSB charge £15-35[7]; HSBC charge a variable amount depending on your banking option, but never less than £15. By law banks are also obliged to show the IBAN and SWIFT code on bank statements, but this is circumvented by UK banks such as Lloyds TSB who only show these on printed statements and not on their online systems. There seems no evidence of regulatory interest in this to date."

To be eligible for the free EU transfer your transaction has to meet certain conditions. See: http://www.abnamro.nl/en/prive/betalen/buitenlandoverboeking/productinformatie.html (under charges). The likely reason that UK banks don't conform is that the transfer is not in Euro (hence the fees are mentioned as pounds). I'll remove this section as it is unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.157 (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Charging excessive fees for cross-border SEPA transfers is perfectly legal as long as domestic euro transfers are charged at least at the same rates. -- 79.221.127.104 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"Territorial coverage" section

The "territorial coverage" section is a bit unclear and seems to be incomplete.

It includes the following territories that are considered to be part of the EU

What about Saint-Martin and Saint-Barthélémy? They are part of the EU according to the Reform Treaty, but they are not mentioned in the list of territories.

The IBAN registry lists all of Denmark on one page (page 20). The document says "SEPA Country: Yes". Does this mean that all of Denmark is part of SEPA? The Faroe Islands is grey on the map, and neither the Faroe Islands nor Greenland are mentioned in the "territorial coverage" section.

Now go to page 60 in the document. There it reads "Country code as defined in ISO 3166: GB, identifies the country of issue of the IBAN as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This explicitly includes the Channel Islands and Isle of Man within the country code GB" and "SEPA Country: Yes". Does this mean that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of SEPA? I assume so, but the map and the "territorial coverage" suggests otherwise.

Now go to France (page 23). "SEPA Country: Yes, included GP, RE, MQ, GF, PM and YT". So according to this document, all of France except the CFP franc zone (NC and WF) and Antarctica (TF) are included, including non-EU PM and YT. I assume that this is the most practical solution, since PM and YT use the euro as currency.

The Wikipedia article points out that Svalbard is not part of the EEA. But are Svalbard banks really locked out from SEPA? Are there even special banks from Svalbard, or are there just local branches of normal Norwegian banks? (Stefan2 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

I think that the "territorial coverage" section is written in a way that doesn't make it very readable. I propose that Wikipedia uses the following wording instead:
SEPA consists of 32 countries:
  • The 27 members of the European Union, including the 11 members which are not in the Eurozone
  • 5 non-EU countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Norway and Switzerland
Some of the countries have overseas possessions, and only some of these are considered as a part of the European Union. All territories part of the European Union are included in SEPA. In addition, some territories not part of the European Union are also included in SEPA. The following SEPA countries have possessions which are not part of SEPA:
The following countries and territories in which the euro is official currency are excluded:
A good source is [2] where all IBAN countries are listed (and SEPA participation is indicated). Since IBAN is a requirement for SEPA participation, there can impossibly be any other SEPA participands, not mentioned in this PDF file. The problem is that I don't know the correct status of the British bases on Cyprus (and the PDF doesn't give any info about this).
The above text is meant as a replacement for the whole section except for the following unsourced sentence: "Vatican City and San Marino which use the Euro by agreement with the EU will be part of SEPA[citation needed]."
The Vatican City and San Marino cases are interesting: as far as I know, they don't have their own banking systems, but use the regular Italian (non-SEPA) banking system for their transactions. This would make a total migration of Italy impossibly as long as these two countries remain outside SEPA. But I can't find any sources confirming this. Maybe someone else knows anything.
No changes made because the topic is more complicated than I first thought. According to the SWIFT PDF, various non-EU dependencies are covered by SEPA, but I'm getting problems when verifying it with [3] (a list of all banks connected to the credit transfer facility). SWIFT says (for example) that non-EU Faroe Islands, Greenland and Saint-Pierre et Miquelon are included, but EBNET's list doesn't include any Faroese or Greenlandic banks. However, the "Banque de Saint Pierre et Miquelon" is included (search for the bank name). Maybe all of the areas are de jure included, although all of the banks from some dependencies simply might not have bothered implementing SEPA. The current section is incorrect, but I don't know if my text above is correct either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The Vatican has at least one bank - The Vatican Bank. It uses IOPRVAVX as its SWIFT-BIC. -- 79.221.127.104 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
AS a matter of fact, the list of SEPA participating banks doesn't list the Vatican Bank: [http://epc.cbnet.info/docs/SEPA_Credit_Transfer.pdf] -- 79.221.127.104 (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the section. Now it's hopefully correct. (Stefan2 (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

SEPA message types?

"To provide end-to-end straight through processing (STP) for SEPA-Clearing the EPC committed to delivering Technical Validation Subsets of ISO 20022. Whereas bank-to-bank messages (pacs) are mandatory for use, customer-to-bank message types (pain) are not; they are strongly recommended however. Because there was tolerance left for interpretation, it is expected that several pain-specifications will be published across SEPA-countries."

I have downloaded the 390 or so documents from europeanpaymentscouncil.eu, 2 of which were ZIPs containing xsd's. all of them pacs message type subsets. Are these the only SEPA Subsets of ISO 20022 by the EPC? or did EPC define more subsets for pain and other message types and are the xsd files just not online?

see http://www.iso20022.org/catalogue_of_unifi_messages.page for kinds of ISO20022 message types... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.111.94 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I started to clean the introduction to provide a better overview of the situation. I moved some of the information into a new section called "Goals". The part where the Swedish Kroner was used to explain the functionality of SEPA should IMO be re-arranged to convey a better overview of how Euro and non-Euro payments are being handled within SEPA. It should not use one specific currency to achieve this as there are several currencies involved in different countries. A broader perspective will be more helpful to the reader in understanding SEPA. I am going to take a look at the rest of the article in the next couple of days. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. -- MenschMitHut (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Progress Report heavily outdated

The progress report section seems to be heavily outdated, since it speaks of deadlines in future, which occurred 2009. It would be nice if someone having the knowledge would update this section to learn what has happened to those deadlines in the past and what the current state of progress looks like. --193.92.235.193 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Requirements to convert to SEPA?

Are there deadlines when banks and/or companies are required to convert over to SEPA? GoingBatty (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Found one reference: http://www.bundesbank.de/Redaktion/EN/Standardartikel/Bundesbank/Views_Insights/current_topics_2012_12_03_sepa.html GoingBatty (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

The thing is called "Single Euro Payments Area", not "Single European Payments Area". The title of the article needs to be changed. (August 2006) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.135.245.71 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected in 2006 - Martinvl (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Croatia into EU as of July 1st 2013

Hi everyone. Croatia is a new member of the UE as of today July 1st, 2013. Is it automatically appended to the SEPA zone? (I don't know any references for this). If so, the Coverage section should be updated: 

SEPA consists of 33 34 countries:
* All 28 European Union member states, including the 10 9 states which are not in the Eurozone
(Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom)
* The four European Free Trade Association member states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland)
* Monaco

--Alvaro Vidal-Abarca (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Here is one reference.
  • This reference is updated at regular intervals. When it is next updated, it might well confirm that Croatia is a member of SEPA.
Martinvl (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
It's in that second document (by now), but not mentioned in it's change history, presumably as an indirect change. --86.136.147.164 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Single_Euro_Payments_Area/Archive_1&oldid=1260226657"