Suppose you resist a bank that forces you to access your account exclusively via some shitty phone app, which also requires you to buy a new smartphone. And suppose you refuse, so your only access to the bank account is via the card.

What happens when the time comes that (e.g.) the gov or a creditor demands a payment by credit transfer, not by card? Are you consequently forced by your obligation to make a payment to then buy a phone? Or do you have a right to manually order a payment from your bank by sending a written letter or something?

There is this law but I’m not sure it’s applicable:

REGULATION (EU) No 260/2012, Art.4: Interoperability
…
3. The processing of credit transfers and direct debits shall not be hindered by technical obstacles.

I think that law was really intended for the bank-to-bank segment of the transaction, not consumer to bank. I get the impression we have no codefied rights, just recommendations to lawmakers, such as:

The European Commission, in its 2012 Green Paper, insisted that standardisation in the mobile payments area should ensure full interoperability between mobile payment solutions, and favour open standards to ensure the mobility of consumers when they wish to change their telecom operator or bank.
…
In its Mobile Payments Initiatives Overview, the European Payments Council stated that different mobile payment solutions from multiple payment service providers should be able to coexist in the same mobile device. In its opinion, consumers should not be bound to a specific network operator or particular mobile equipment, but should be able to switch between payment service providers, with interoperability as a key feature needed to achieve these goals.

But to be fair that was written 10 years ago. Any headway?

  • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    5·
    4 days ago

    Two come to mind but there will be a big caveat below: Either consumer protection: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32011L0083

    Or more likely though the psd2 (I hope this one is the correct link, mobile…) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L2366

    Now the big catch: you’d need to proof that you’re dependent on that bank with no alternative, otherwise it’s hard to argue that you are unfairly treated as it is up to reach company how to implement the psd2 securities requirements.

    What happens if that you either agreed to their shorty app when signing up for a bank account or they changed their terms of service. If it’s the latter than you need to agree to the changes or change your bank.

    It would get more interesting if you need a specific app or device to close your account - here I’d be completely out of my depth but I would guess that it then depends on the specific national implementation.

    Remember that EU law usually needs to be translated into national law for you to be applicable.

    For your second question that is even worse news: that’s for us as consumers to solve (depending a bit on the national implementation, at least in Germany companies and state are not anymore required to accept cash for invoices).

    Edit: I answered only because you asked for the EU laws, I’m not at all familiar with the NL implementations and stumbled here from All :)

    • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zoneOP
      2·
      4 days ago

      at least in Germany companies and state are not anymore required to accept cash for invoices

      Yikes. That’s a shame. There is the EC Recommendation of 22 March 2010 (2010/191/EU) which wisely states:

      A debtor can discharge himself from a payment obligation by tendering euro banknotes and coins to the creditor.

      I am surprised Germany has gone against that. I thought cash was loved by Germans.

      • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        2·
        4 days ago

        Oh yeah, cash is king here (to my personal demise I have to admit).

        I guess it’s the other easy around, Germany never updated: BGB 241 allows for deviations of cash within individual terms. The state itself uses that privilege at least for some transactions (had to pay a service invoice via bank transfer only, no other payment methods accepted).

        I looked it up now, I guess it’s even clearer: since 2023 only bank transfer or similar trackable transactions are allowed for real estate transactions.

        Fascinating, thanks for the rabbit hole!

        • LibreMonk@linkage.ds8.zoneOP
          2·
          4 days ago

          There was a story about a German guy insisting on paying his radio licensing fees in cash. He setup an escrow account and paid his invoices into that, so that the state could not claim he was just using cash refusal as an excuse not to pay. I don’t think I ever heard what came of the legal case.