CEN/TR 16092:2011

Electronic fee collection - Requirements for pre-payment systems

Publication date:   May 17, 2011

Scope

This technical report (TR) analyses requirements for a universal Pre-Pay account system for EFC including the following issues:
- relations to other existing standards in this domain;
- the core requirements and functionality that must be provided.
This technical report will show an analysis of the requirements for a universal prepay system and categorise possible different types of pre-pay solutions, in terms of functionality, technical and legal considerations. As far as legal requirements are concerned it will be clarified whether the pre-payment means fall within the scope of European Directive 2000/46/EC on the taking up, pursuit of and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions and whether the medium-issuing organisation has to act as a financial institution and falls within the scope of the Payment Service Directive 2007/64/EC. The latter applying exactly to payment activities undertaken by entities but do not require a full bank license.
The technical report will describe the current state-of-affairs of EFC pre-payment systems, including the demand for standards and inventory of provisions provided by standards. It will identify and prioritize gaps in terms of standards or other enablers needed in order for the market to provide viable pre-payment solutions in a European context.
There are two general approaches to represent the content of the TR:
a) allocate each requirement under each pre-pay solution;
b) allocate each pre-pay solution under each requirement.
To achieve a better understanding and readability alternative a) has been decided (this refers to Clause 8 and Clause 9 only).
The TR does not give any decision on how or whether one of the pre-payment solutions described is commercially feasible to be considered as an implementable offer to the Service User. The return for invest for any TSP regarding the system architecture requirements and other obligations (refunding of SU) is questionable.