EU Court Rules Hungary's State Monopoly Over Mobile Payments Is Illegal (reuters.com) 120
Hungarian state's monopoly over national mobile payment services has been ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice. "The ruling would require the end of exclusive control over Hungarian mobile payments exercised since July 2014 by state-owned firm Nemzeti Mobilfizetesi Zrt," reports Reuters. "This exclusive operation 'is contrary to EU law,' the bloc's top court said in a statement."
"Even if the services provided under that system constitute services of general economic interest, their supply cannot be reserved to a state monopoly," the court added.
"Even if the services provided under that system constitute services of general economic interest, their supply cannot be reserved to a state monopoly," the court added.
Next up: Corporations printing their own cash (Score:2)
Re: Next up: Corporations printing their own cash (Score:3, Informative)
Corporations are certainly allowed to print their own cash. They just can't print currency that they do not legitimately own, or are not allowed to do under the terms regulating those currencies. They can print as much Corp-dolars, AmazonPoints, Casino chips, or Bitcoins as they please.
Re: (Score:2)
Many countries outlaw this completely. See: scrip laws.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually still prefer the mobile payment system "cash", which is state owned, and does not make me the product of data krakens.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes, because such payment systems are one of those things where "market mechanisms" do not cause healthy competition in the long run. And a state-owned monopoly, which is at least indirectly controllable (via elections) is a lot better than some arbitrary mega-corporation skimming money off every transaction.
I actually still prefer the mobile payment system "cash", which is state owned, and does not make me the product of data krakens.
Erm... You're effectively asking for one company to have a monopoly on all mobile payments and can't see why that is a bad thing? I'm generally in favour of the government controlling things that the free market fails at like health care, policing, education, et al... but when it comes to payment providers I can only see harm by allowing the government to have a monopoly over it. A market solution isn't perfect, but any monopoly over payment methods is a bad thing for consumers, be it a government or priva
Transaction fee crisis (Score:2)
It costs little to nothing to send a payment with something like Dash, Bitcoin Cash, Zen Cash, ZCash, or numerous other crypto currencies.
Since when? It costs money to buy or sell cryptocurrency with majority-familiar currency or a different cryptocurrency, and it costs a transaction fee in cryptocurrency to transfer cryptocurrency to a seller's wallet. With Bitcoin, the transaction fee briefly hit the equivalent of 34 USD a year ago [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That _could_ be a good idea actually given the right system. If the system ensured _by_law_ that all transfers are comparable with physical money, that any attempts to track the money between point A and point B is impossible to do automatically (no identifiers in transactions). IOW keep a per "coin" identifier to be able to detect some thefts but don't keep a bitcoin-style database.
Doing that in Hungary? Don't trust them enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian Tire money?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
jq (Score:1)
Charging interest is not a good thing kike.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The article is pretty sparse, but I'm curious.
There isn't much of a ruling here.
I'm in Canada. We have universal healthcare and we FORBID the private sector from operating a competing health care system.
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU? My hunch says no because Healthcare! But I ask myself from a legal perspective, why can't a country make a case that payments go through it's national system for whatever reasons that constitute the general economic interest?
I've googled a fair bit for som
Re: (Score:3)
Then I have some bad news for you.
Your country has signed and ratified the TPPA (or "CPTPP" as it is now called).
The "general economic interest" is no longer be a priority for your country - only the economic interest of the controlling corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU? My hunch says no because Healthcare!
I guess we could work through the healthcare systems of every (27/28) member states, but that sounds boring. Probably not? I don't know of any EU country off hand which forbids private healthcare.
Also, the EU does segment things differently for different industries, because it's made up of the member countries and they all want regulations segmented by industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU? My hunch says no because Healthcare!
This is one of the problems with North American thinking. It's typically worse in the USA but Canada suffers from it too. There are very few absolutes, very little black and white, very little either or scenarios in much of the world.
In both Australia and where in the EU I live now we had public healthcare. We also had private healthcare. They lived side by side in unison, either overtly, or covertly. In Australia it was overtly: You had medicare coverage, you opted for private coverage. If you had a life t
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the nuances of the world and the diversity of systems. I'm more interested in figuring out the EU courts position on things.
For example, I found this article.
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Basically the EU court ruled that France can keep it's horse betting monopoly because it claims it is to prevent gambling problems.
So my question is why can't that apply to mobile payments for Hungary?
Could Hungary not keep it's mobile payment monopoly to prevent financial problems (fraud, theft. terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the case may be more nuanced than this. It would appear that there were some seriously complex details discussed during this case, and it's not over since all that happened was guidance that referred it back to the lower court. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/legal_... [europa.eu] I'm sure it worked in France's favour that the PMU is also setup as a not for profit body.
In general the EU frowns upon all monopolies that have no reason for being so, and while Slashdot gets in uproar over the occasional story that makes
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Canada. We have universal healthcare and we FORBID the private sector from operating a competing health care system.
Would this kind of situation be forbidden by the EU?
How about that, huh?
It's almost like EU politics is arbitrary and about whatever signals the most virtue.
Hungary of course is also eeeevil because they don't want to be overrun by culturally incompatible immigrants. I'm sure that has nothing to do with sticking it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is made up of its member states, including Hungary. Its members decide which industries are regulated and to what extent. Monopolies enforced by the government in areas like this are frowned upon in every EU country. Try again with your breathless, feigned outrage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No you slobbering illiberal twit. Did you even read summary? You just saw EU and hurr hurr brexit.
What kind of mental fucking gymnastics do you have to pull to think a state controlled monopoly on mobile payments is a good idea? In what dimension, what reality would this be a good plan? And it's not even a state monopoly. It's the state taking kickbacks from some oligarch to be handed control of a lucrative industry.
It's this kind of fucking nonsense that the EU was expressly designed to fix. Hungary wants
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"So the EU is now dictating which services it's member governments are allowed to run" No, just that they don't own the MONOPOLY on the entirety of the monetization of that. READ CAREFULLY LIBERTARIAN NUTJOBS!
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
You people are all so fucking stupid, it's depressing.
The EU is a club. It costs money to join, there are rules to follow, and there are benefits of membership, like frictionless access to a market of several hundred million people. With the exception of the money, this is no different from every international agreement between two or more countries. If Hungary wants to have airlines flying into its airports and through its airspace, then it must agree to be bound by the various treaties that govern international aviation, which also impose onerous requirements on what it can and cannot do.
You people getting your knickers in a twist over sovereignty are the epitome of Randian stupidity. And like the Randians, what's particularly galling is that you actually think you're bright.
Re: (Score:2)
With attitudes like yours, is it any wonder the EU is so fantastically unpopular?
Ohhh didums, did someone point out the truth hurt you?
The EU isn't unpopular here in Europe. What is unpopular here are mass shootings, expensive health care, slavery-like employment contracts and large engines that produce little power.
We also don't hate the US, nor are dependent on it. At worst, we feel sorry for you and wish you luck in fixing your country.
You on the other hand, epitomise every negative stereotype of Americans. Painfully ignorant and outstandingly arrogant.
Re: (Score:3)
So the EU is now dictating which services it's member governments are allowed to run? I wonder which telcos lobbied EU officials for that little gem. Brexit was the right move.
Pretty much every time there's any news about anything at all the EU has done, some idiots totally shit themselves and start with the "herp derp sovereignty Brexit" mantra.
Here's a free clue: no one will ever agree to deal with you on anything if you too don't agree to some rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. The EU government is regulating which services its member governments are allowed to run as monopolies (and there are cases where monopolies are allowed. In Finland and Sweden for example all liquor stores are government run which has been allowed because the revenue collected from the sale of liquor are used by the state to provide health care to treat alcohol-related illnesses).
There's nothing about this ruling that
I'd settle for slashdot supporting ASCII... (Score:2)
Background (Score:2)
Any background on this story, or is there just a court outcome for something I've never heard about?
Still in its infancy (Score:2)
Government of judges (Score:3, Insightful)
Here again the EU court of justice pushes its agenda about free market obsession. And since EU institutions do not have a real legislator, this landmark ruling will be law unless all member states agree to overturn it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow....just....Wow. Never thought I would see the words "EU" and "free market obsession" used in the same sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I find this quite amusing.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow....just....Wow. Never thought I would see the words "EU" and "free market obsession" used in the same sentence.
You've not been following politics in the UK much :(
Reese-Mogg and Johnson think the EU is some sort of left wing plot designed to hold back the fearless capitalists. Corbyn is convinced the EU is some sort of free-market capitalist plot designed to keep the worker in place by limiting regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been watching the UK Brexit politics with bile fascination. The sheer incompetence of it is what we Germans call "Realsatire" - something so absurd and ridiculous it can only be satire, but nevertheless happens in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been watching the UK Brexit politics with bile fascination. The sheer incompetence of it is what we Germans call "Realsatire" - something so absurd and ridiculous it can only be satire, but nevertheless happens in real life.
I've been watching it up close and personal and let me tell you it's no any better. Like every day. Take this little nugget from just yesterday!
Take Dominic Raab and ardent Brexiter and now, minister for Brexit where he's been taking a hard line since June. Apparently yesterday he
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, your politicians are quite funny in their own special way. My personal favourite is this:
"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband"
And here I thought that nobody can top a CSU politician in being ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought that nobody can top a CSU politician in being ridiculous.
Oh yes Cameron. What a fucker. Stil doesn't think he made a mistake over Brexit. And he stuck his willy in a pigs head.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong. the EU commission is composed of the current ministers of the 28 (soon to be 27) countries composing it.
so what we can take from this, is that some of the other countries would like to grab part of the transaction fees that the hungarian government is currently having all for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here again the EU court of justice pushes its agenda about free market obsession.
Its amazing how often upholding the law as written becomes "pushing an agenda" just because of the group making the ruling, or the group who are upset about it.
Re: (Score:2)
This ruling is in line of long standing EU practice. The agenda of free market is pretty much the point of EU. They are not opposed to regulations as long as companies are regulated equally, but what Hungary does is not regulation, but forced monopoly. Even just giving subsidies to a single private company could get Hungary in trouble.
There are cases where legally imposed monopolies are permitted, but the member states must show that competition would hurt consumers, like electrical grid. In theory Hungar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do with the free market really, this is about interstate trade.
One of the functions of the Single Market is to make sure every member plays fair. That way free trade between them is on a fair and level basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck do I vote for every 4 years, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Very coy, that Rothschild allusion.
First time I've seen anyone on Slashdot worry about letting their antisemitism show through in technicolour.
Wtf? (Score:2)
That seems draconian. What if mobile payments are used for crime or money laundering? Seems like Hungary should have a right to overree its own economy, regardless of the EU or Eurozone.
Re: Wtf? (Score:2)
That... is the complete opposite. Rights are being limited already. I'm using crime as a reason to support re-establishing rights, not to remove them.
Re: Wtf? (Score:2)
Then those Hungarians can move somewhere else in the Eurozone. Still don't see an issue. Different governments do things different. The great thing about a federation like the U.S. or the E.U. is that you can just pick up and move if you don't like the local laws.
A government having oversight over its economy is the norm. Making a fuss about Hungarian control over mobile payments when cash is still a thing is pretty silly.
Re: Wtf? (Score:2)
Governments having control over banking is still the norm in (the limited number of remaining) non-Eurozone nations in the EU, and certainly through the rest of Europe. What's the difference between a government monopoly on banking and a government monopoly on mobile payments?
I certainly understand why Brussels takes issue, but I don't buy the government competition angle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can what-if strawmen all we want. Hungary can continue to pass legislation that it requires to oversee its economy or crime and can even require operators to do so. They just can't forbid operators because they don't want competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can reduce the benefits of EU membership, such as payments, access to markets, etc. Eventually, they could kick them out.
Re: (Score:2)
I said they *could* kick them out. They obviously don't want to. So club members obviously have a lot of leeway. But it's certainly a conceivable option. If a country committed genocide or began a war with another EU country, I think they'd be kicked out.
Whatever the EU does, the Hungarian government will seek to use it to rally support. I mean, duh. So what? That's just a question of tactics and strategy on the part of the EU and Hungary. Personally, I think relatively few Hungarians are likely to become m
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it is impossible to forcibly expel a member of the EU. The worst thing the EU can do is suspending the voting rights of a member, but it has to be a unanimous decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, let's just hope they lose their voting rights and their subsidies will be drastically lowered.
That might even make them quit by themselves, that would be the best possible outcome for the EU.
EU east-west split again (Score:1)
This company provides service only for paying parking and highway fee. These services are not free market services. Parking fees are determined by the local government, road fee is state determined.
Highways are built by the state. Maintenance of these roads, handling of fees, fines are outsourced to basically one state owned company.
Parking lots are built and maintained most widely by local governments. The administration of parking (handling of fees, fines) are handled by private companies.
Except from thes
Re: (Score:2)
In Latvia, we have a similar company called Mobilly, which is for paying for parking, paid roads (paid road, to be precise), transport tickets (which are often run by local municipalities). Yet, the company is private and rather liked. It has been around for quite a while, so I don't think that east-west split is to blame.
In any case, the point of the ruling is that Hungary is required to allow others to participate. They can require the system to be reasonably fast.