EU Court Rules Hungary's State Monopoly Over Mobile Payments Is Illegal (reuters.com)

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.

Comments

Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[ffkom]

I mean, how could that be deemed illegal if there must not be a state monopoly for other payment systems?

Re: Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[szabo.m.peter]

Do you think it is a good idea that ALL mobile payments by law must go through a state operated company?

Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[ffkom]

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.

Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[szabo.m.peter]

Yes, private companies can be sometimes predatory.

However the Hungarian state is still allowed to run its own payment processor (only the monopoly part was ruled illegal). It is also allowed to use other fair legislature to regulate mobile payments. This two (according to my view) should be enough, and strict state monopoly is not required.

Also note, that "offline" cash that you mention is not a state monopoly either. Creating forint bank notes is with the national bank, but "money" is created by several business entities. Paying with this cash is definitely free for all, not a state monopoly.

Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[Gavagai80]

Canadian Tire money?

Re: Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[Luckyo]

Many countries outlaw this completely. See: scrip laws.

Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Have you seen elections in Hungary lately? I'm not sure I'd want that government knowing my transaction history.

* https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/democracy-is-on-the-brink-in-hungary-so-why-is-no-one-talking-about-it-a7883876.html
* https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/04/12/democracy-is-dying-in-hungary-the-rest-of-the-world-should-worry/?noredirect=on
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-democracy-authoritarianism-trump

Though I do generally use cash for most things under $100 or so.

Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[mjwx]

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 private monopoly.

At the very worst the government should compete on a fair and open market for mobile payments, but not control the market.

Basically this would be like the government stating that all credit cards must be provided by their bank.

Re:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[Megol]

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:Next up: Corporations printing their own cash

[Anonymous Coward]

Acutally I think it better that such companies, let's call them banks, should be state-owned rather rather than privately.

Really?

[niftydude]

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.

Re:Really?

[szabo.m.peter]

No. Hungary is allowed to run a mobile payment service, but Hungary is not allowed to forbid private companies from doing the same. It is not allowed to require by law that all mobile payments go through the state operated mobile payment processor.

Re:Really?

[ffkom]

Are you seriously saying that a UK outside of the EU will have less lobbyist in power? You will be in for a bad surprise...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 the benefits of the EU? They adopt policies that are not fucking for terrible the country and member countries.

Because it's not just Hungary that's hurt by this god-awful policy. It's everyone who does business with people in the Hungary.

Re:Really?

[scamper_22]

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 some legal analysis, but it's sparse. The court basically says they should have done it through legislation/standardization....

But I'm trying to figure out how this works with all other kinds of state monopolies be it in healthcare, transit, roads, utilities...

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

[Anonymous Coward]

No dumbass, they ruled GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY is not allowed and illegal.

Why the fuck people keep bothering with stupid shit like voting, government, and fiat is beyond me.

Rule your own goddamned selves.
Create your own schools, roads, police that serve only you not steal from you to feed the state, your own health care how you want it, your own cryptocurrency money in your own wallet, your own charities, and...
Your own fucking freedom for once.

END this stupid brainwashing that GovernMent has put into you.

Re:Really?

[Trogre]

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:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good tool for surveillance. A way for the state to know what their citizens spend money on via mobile payments.
You could probably sell it under the guise of fighting money laundering and tax fraud or something like that. And with all the EU hate that is going on people will cheer as their liberties are taken away, just because it's something that happens to be in spite of the EU.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada has no such law. There is no restriction on my setting up a hospital in Canada, doctors office or pharmacy, aside from the usual malpractice and drug laws.

Canada has plenty of private insurance and I wanna pay extra for boob job plastic surgery, etc options.

Re:Really?

[shilly]

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:Really?

[serviscope_minor]

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: Really?

[houghi]

I live in Belgium. If I want I can do my own health insurance. In fact I have and the company pays for it.
It covers single room occupancy and longer paymemt and more when I am sick over a longer period.

Without it, you still get healthcare and a minimal wage, but eXtra insurance is always possible.

Hey we are less communist than Canada. Who knew? (Thanks for liberating the EU and not moaning about it.)

Re:Really?

[serviscope_minor]

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:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

I'm Finnish - we have public healthcare for sure - but in practice majority of working adults use _private_ doctors and private healthcare companies because their workplace offers them.

"Public" healthcare actually BUYS services from private companies (like ambulance services are for huge part, privatized).

This system has its flaws and cons, but there are also pro's. But in the end, I think it's best to have both public and private like we have. Kind of keeps things in balance, but whenever balance shifts to one way or another, shit happens (like lately, saving on elder care has lead to some unbelieveably bad and expensive services for elderly people simply because public side buys them from random companies who are not doing their job propely, for example).

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we are lucky that private corporate monopolies take great efforts to protect the poor citizens and would never spy them or give away their data.

Re:Really?

[thegarbz]

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 threattening injury the ambulance took you to a hospital and after they ask how you wanted to be covered. If you had a non-life threatting issue you actively got asked beforehand. Had this myself when I had my hernia OP. I elected to go to a private hospital, they told me up front the fees and how much my private insurance covered, .... then I went back to the doctor and asked to be re-reffered to a public hospital.

As it is now I have public health insurance. To claim that insurance I need to see a public doctor for a referral. At any time I can go to any other doctor or hospital anyway, and there are private insurances which I could purchase to cover me there.

But I'm trying to figure out how this works with all other kinds of state monopolies be it in healthcare, transit, roads, utilities...

As I said above healthcare is easy. As for the rest of them: Transit is a greyer area. There are definitely private transit systems all throughout Europe. But the rest of the list tends towards natural monopolies rather than state protected monopolies. For example it's not the government saying "no you are not allowed to compete with me" for that new start-up sewer company, but "no you are not allowed to dig here" is a very different and quite defendable story. Most government run services end up being monopolies for reasons other than the government trying to keep them that way, and typically that is the result of not having the legal power to start the business.

E.g. You see very few private competitive train operators in city centres, but at the same time a lot of resource movement happens via private rail lines. The difference is the potential to make money as well as the ability to build a train line in the city vs on your own massive plot of land.

Re:Really?

[Barsteward]

complete bollox. you abide by the rules of the club when you join. brexiters see conspiracy theories in their morning cereal.

Re:Really?

[Kiuas]

So the EU is now dictating which services it's member governments are allowed to run?

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 prevents the Hungarian government from maintaining a payment service, this ruling just means the state cannot use its power to prevent competition from emerging or entering the market. In the exact same way the Hungarian government can start selling cars for all the Union cares, as long as they don't enact a system whereby all auto-sales have to be conducted through the government.

Free market and freedom of competition is one of the core values of the Union. There are plenty of existing mobile-payment companies in existence in Europe that cannot currently enter the market in Hungary because of the monopoly, and that violates European law.

Brexit was the right move.

Oh yes, finally the British government free from this tyrannical oppression of the free market will be able to implement more state-run monopolies, because who needs competition when the State can simply run all the services, right? Brexit remains of the largest political blunders in modern British history that will do them exactly no good.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Power tends to corrupt.
Whether that power is held by private entities like corporations, by public entities like a government, and of course by entities like churches, doesn't appear to matter. As long as they have a monopoly and can keep that monopoly through things like unlimited terms and are allowed to use their monopoly to establish other monopolies, history shows us again and again that this won't go down in favour of the people.
The EU court ruling does not prevent the government from offering these services. It just means that they must allow competitors as well. So in the end you'd still have the choice whether you give your data to your trusty government or one of those possible competitors from the private sector.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can leave the club if the rules are changed and you find them to be unsavoury.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Canada. We have universal healthcare and we FORBID the private sector from operating a competing health care system.

First, "Canada" does not have a health care system: each province's is running independently (yay federalism!). Though Ottawa does give money and set certain overarching standards.

What we have in Canada is a system where a doctor can either be (a) part of the public system (e.g., OHIP in Ontario), or (b) be part of the private system.

But a doctor (or any other medical service) cannot both take government payments and take payments privately, at the same time. If you want to be in the private healthcare sector, you can. However, since the public system is so large, it's kind of hard to not be part of it.

Note: most family doctors / GPs are actually "small businesses" and are not government employees (contrast with UK's NHS). Hospitals too AFAICT: they're separate legal entities, that are paid by the government, but are generally run independently. That's also why they have an independent pension fund (HOOPP in ON), and are not part of government pension system.

So we have universal healthcare achieved via single-payer (the province/s), but a doctor is free not to join that payment system. I think this is similar to Medicare: it's the single-payer that cuts cheques to independent doctors and such. Kind of like a payment processor--which doctors are free to not accept.

Re:Really?

[DNS-and-BIND]

With attitudes like yours, is it any wonder the EU is so fantastically unpopular? Shitting on the little people and calling them stupid...gosh that's really how to persuade people you're right about everything. Sad part is that most of the EU government is pretty much just like you.

Moreover support for the EU is very closely related to anti-Americanism. On Slashdot you'll see a lot of Europeans admit very openly that they support the EU because they see it as a rival to the US.

A lot of hate Old Europe has for the US is not only a product of their ignorance of their dependence on the US, it's also *because of* their dependence on the US. Old Europe takes the US for granted and many of those that are aware of their dependence on the US still hate the US because playing second fiddle to the US stings their pride.

Re: Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what part of caressing they government is "Randian"

Re:Really?

[mjwx]

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:Really?

[scamper_22]

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...

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...whatever else it can claim as the general economic interest)

Because surely France could also legislate and regulate an open market of horse gambling in the same way as Hungary can legislate and regulate an open market for mobile payments.

Of course it could just be that France is bigger power and the EU is more timid towards them. Yet, assuming the EU court is trying to be fair, I'm trying to figure out the rule and the difference.

Re:Really?

[cascadingstylesheet]

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:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is unpopular in the US and vice versa mostly because of the pot stirrers.

Support for the EU is not as closely related to anti-Americanism as you think. On the contrary, a lot of EU supporters also supports globalism and (transatlantic) trade agreements with the US. Why? They don't only want to export stuff into the single market, but also the economy with the most wealthy people on this planet. China doing most of the things on their own, isn't such a good trade partner here. Being at odds with the US doesn't help the agendas of the capitalists in the EU.

On the other hand, those that are anti-EU are very closely related to isolationism and anti-capitalism, which inherently is also anti-Americanism. Repeating mantras that the EU or the NATO is the pet of the US, more specifically powerful US corporations. And that ideology coming from the US is destroying local culture in their countries. A good subset of these people are also sympathetic to Putin, regularly criticizing 'occupation' by the US in Germany to keep them in check while Putin doesn't do such bad things.

Of course with Trump and the pot stirring there's other subsets surfacing. One of them being EU patriots, who want the EU to stand on its own legs. Then there's others who see a temporary ally in Trump, since he also hates the EU.

Re: Really?

[Barsteward]

sure, as long as you don't still want to take advantage of the benefits once you are out the door

Re:Really?

[thegarbz]

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_... 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 it here, there are actually a lot of such rulings each year.

Now I do wonder if there's something else here too. The French ruling was referred back to the lower court. I haven't found any details here but with the little information we have it looks more absolute. I wonder if this has to do with the current falling out between Hungary and the EU precisely due to the issue of independence of courts from the government. The fact that the EU and Hungary are fighting actively on this issue is no secret, so maybe there was politics involved as much as I like to hope there wasn't.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU started out as a club that would promote the production of coal and steel, but it is quickly heading towards becoming the United States of Europe. It is all ready making laws and international treaties that member states must follow. The title of king, queen or grand duke of a European nation is just given to powerless figureheads on postage stamps and coins. National consitutions no longer count. The Euro currency is failing, and it can only work when Brussels dictates economic policies.

Re:Really?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Sneering contempt and hate...i think the point of my post passed right over your head. The EU is falling apart and attitudes like yours are why. Dismissive and offensive towards anyone who thinks differently. The EU is built upon a foundation of free American security, free protection for the vaunted EU exports by the US Navy, and unfair trade agreements that Europe provide an effective subsidy of $150 billion every year. Take any of these three away and the EU has severe problems. Take all of them away and you seriously think the EU can succeed? Nobody pays for a military. You know how ruinously expensive military might is? I guess not. If you knew how fragile the EU really is, you would sing a different tune. Without the Americans backing it at a tremendous cost to themselves, it would never exist. Even with all this welfare the EU is still falling apart.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep drinking that coolaid.

Re:Really?

[dave420]

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.

I'd settle for slashdot supporting ASCII...

[fibonacci8]

Nemzeti Mobilfizetési Zrt

Re: I'd settle for slashdot supporting ASCII...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay classy Hungary

Background

[dohzer]

Any background on this story, or is there just a court outcome for something I've never heard about?

Re:Background

[Anonymous Coward]

> Any background on this story, or is there just a court outcome for something I've never heard about?

The 2010-ongoing government of Hungary is a lapdog of Putin, they are busy undermining the EU and NATO, while turning their own country back in time to be the semi-feudal, semi-fascist quasi-monarchy it used to be between 1920 and 1945. Hungary very soon will attack the Ukraine to curb away the so-called Karpatalja region in unison with a russian attack on the eastern ukrainian border, which will probably initiate an all-european war. Meanwhile the PM orban's family clan is stealing the national wealth like there is no tormorrow...

The EU and NATO shouldn't wrist-slap Hungary with mere toilet paper court verdicts but they should occupy Hungary and oust the Orban-regime, to prevent a new Hitler from emerging and starting WW3 (it's the same south-eastern european region where WW1 and WW2 had started). At the very least, they should militarily secure the capital city Budapest like a new West Berlin, even if the rest of Hungary, which is full of low-IQ peasants goes to Putin.

Banks, not Telcos

[Anonymous Coward]

Banks are sovereign, and they own the EU. The member states of the EU are no longer sovereign.

Re:Banks, not Telcos

[Barsteward]

bollox, brexit trolling conspiracy theorist - all EU states are sovereign.

Re: Banks, not Telcos

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly not. Note the ECHJ justice demonstrated that.

Re: Banks, not Telcos

[Barsteward]

clearly you don't understand they applied the law as it stands, they did not make the law. go do some research and then ask someone to explain it to you

Still in its infancy

[Gabest]

People don't have compatible phones, or places to use it. Paypass/Paywave cards were introduced a few years ago and everybody got one issued by now.

Government of judges

[manu0601]

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:Government of judges

[deKernel]

Wow....just....Wow. Never thought I would see the words "EU" and "free market obsession" used in the same sentence.

Re:Government of judges

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful. The cognitive dissonance is strong with that one. It may be infectious.

Re:Government of judges

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is as Statist as they come.
There is no free and open markets and competitive efficiencies therein coming from EU Governments.
This is simply because Governments cannot exist in free and open markets.
So they brainwash you into believing Governments are necessary.
This brainwashing occurs in Government schools from young age, Government regulated television and radio, Government politics, Government land and auto title keeping, Government taxes, Government force jail and murder.

Free your mind and realize that Government is the problem that needs to go away.

Re:Government of judges

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the rare occasions where all these trolls are confused and don't really know who to side with.
I find this quite amusing.

Re:Government of judges

[Anonymous Coward]

They already found a solution for that possible cognitive dissonance if you read through all the comments.
Blame it on the Jews. The EU is controlled by the banks and the banks are controlled by the Jews.
The Jews are both behind capitalism and communism. Hell even Hitler was probably Jewish and everything he did was just a false flag operation portrait Jews as the victims. And we all know that the holocaust never happened.
So it was the Jews all along. The universal rug you can sweep any inconsistency under.

And for those that may not get it, I'm being sarcastic.

Re:Government of judges

[sxpert]

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: Government of judges

[houghi]

So you say competition is bad? Are you working for Putin?

Re:Government of judges

[serviscope_minor]

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:Government of judges

[thegarbz]

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:Government of judges

[Tranzistors]

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 Hungary could show that a single provided helps consumers, but I doubt they will succeed, since payment systems in EU already are distributed and rather cheap.

Re:Government of judges

[dunkelfalke]

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:Government of judges

[Barsteward]

what the f**k are you talking about? the EU Court of Justice applies the law as it stands and those laws are all agreed to by ALL EU states, they don't make laws. The EU does its best to keep market a level playing field so its fair for all

Re:Government of judges

[Barsteward]

don't start another conspiracy theory even as a joke as those that live under tin foil hats cannot tell the difference

Re:Government of judges

[Barsteward]

its even more depressing living here in the UK and having to live through this shit - its so depressing that there are so many people in the UK that cannot research and make objective decisions based on that research. Too many of them live by believing conspiracy theories

Re:Government of judges

[AmiMoJo]

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:Government of judges

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be right. Better keep the sarcastic conspiracy theories at a minimum.

Re:Government of judges

[Anonymous Coward]

That is apparently the norm in the US political discussions, so people tend to gravitate towards the same pattern in other contexts as well.

Re:Government of judges

[JohnnyBGod]

since EU institutions do not have a real legislator

Who the fuck do I vote for every 4 years, then?

Re:Government of judges

[serviscope_minor]

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 only just realised that you know a lot of stuff goes across the channel at Dover and it would be quite astoundingly bad if it stopped:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...

How the fuck could he not of known that? He's the fucking minister what the ever living fuck?

And this was just yesterday!

Re:Government of judges

[dunkelfalke]

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:Government of judges

[serviscope_minor]

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.

jq

[Anonymous Coward]

Charging interest is not a good thing kike.

Re:jq

[Anonymous Coward]

Really??

I know I'm an AC because I'm too lazy to sign up here.
I know you're an AC because you are a coward.

Re: jq

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol found the heebee jeebee

Re:jq

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop embarrassing yourself!

Usury is the "illegal" action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.

Charging interest is fine but Read: interest at unreasonably high rates.

Transaction fee crisis

[tepples]

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.

Rothschild

[Anonymous Coward]

EU Court Rules Hungary's State Monopoly Over Mobile Payments Is Illegal

The Rothschild Mafi has decided that Hungary can no longer control mobile payments

Re:Rothschild

[shilly]

Very coy, that Rothschild allusion.
First time I've seen anyone on Slashdot worry about letting their antisemitism show through in technicolour.

Wtf?

[reanjr]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What if [free speech/human rights/INSERT ANYTHING HERE] is used for crime or money laundering? Seems like _INSERT COUNTRY HERE_ should have a right to oversee its own __INSERT GOVT BRANCH HERE__, regardless of the EU or Eurozone.

Re:Wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hungary overseeing its own economy for reasons like that would be draconian.
It puts everyone under surveillance even though there's no probable cause other than "what if". Guilty until proven innocent. And of course all the good citizens who don't commit crimes have nothing to fear.
Something that goes against the foundation of our western values, but appears to become increasingly popular among the people who fall for all that fear mongering that's going around lately.

Re: Wtf?

[houghi]

Like cash? And overseeing is possible if the payment is not done by them. Theycould apply the same rules as SEPA.

Re:Wtf?

[thegarbz]

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:Wtf?

[Tranzistors]

They don't need to own it to oversee it. I don't think EU would mind regulations, as long as those regulations protect privacy etc.

Re:Wtf?

[Anonymous Coward]

They surely have already implemented the directives to prevent organized crime or money laundering in the banking regulations? Ah, yes but they are not part of the Eurozone or banking union. Therefore the EU has to argue through the market regulation. If Hungary could somehow argue that their government run payment system is somehow essential to their national security as a piece of critical infrastructure, they could get away with it for a while.

Re: Wtf?

[reanjr]

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?

[reanjr]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

A government holding a monopoly while not allowing competitors to exist in its economy or certain parts of its economy is not the norm in the EU. General suspicion towards the entire population because of "what if" is not the norm in the EU.

Maybe in the US you can pick up your things and move. I would agree that this is great, but the EU has not come this far where people can say in unison 'we are Europeans'. Keep the history of Europe in mind here. People didn't all move to a new place as immigrants like in the US. Europe arose from feudalism where people were ruled by monarchy, developing highly individual cultural identities. These things still exist today and people mostly identify with the nation they were born in.

Just look at who we're talking about in this case. The course of Hungary's government has been set to isolation for the last decade or so. Which roughly coincides with the onset of Hungarians leaving Hungary for greener pastures inside the EU. I can't be sure if these things are connected, but if you believe their government, then they are.

Now imagine if these different governments were all allowed to do their things that way. And why shouldn't they? After all the same rules must apply to everyone. Then the very foundation of that federation starts to fall apart. For a federation to be able to exist, there must be at least some common ground that is cemented in federal law.

Consequently Hungary should either be kicked out (which doesn't work that way) or leave on its own if it doesn't like federal law. Fortunately for them they are surrounded by other countries that can act as a buffer zone in the case something bad should happen.

Re: Wtf?

[reanjr]

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.

hm

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens when the Hungary says "suck it" to the EU Court, and does not do as "ordered"?
What can they really do to Hungary. Nothing?

Re: hm

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the EU is building an army

Re:hm

[shilly]

They can reduce the benefits of EU membership, such as payments, access to markets, etc. Eventually, they could kick them out.

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Kick them out"?
The EU bureaucrat biggest nightmare is that some country will leave the EU. So they will newer do something like this.

Hungaryan government will use this EU court precedent to rally its supporters. And they will loath the EU even more than before.

Re:hm

[shilly]

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 more avid haters of the EU and backers of their government on the basis of a ruling about mobile payments and state monopolies, but by all means take a different view.

Re:hm

[dunkelfalke]

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:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

Government will use this precedent as "they want to meddle even in our internal telephone payment systems!"

And people in Poland, Austria, Italy and in other places will see and think "See what the EU does in Hungary! They attack everyone who is against the central EU bureaucracy"

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony is that the two member states that perhaps bitch the most about the EU interfering in their undemocratic practices - Hungary and Poland - would instantly get their act together, if there was a real threat of them being expelled from the EU. And the EU "interference" is very much driven by the parts of the population in those countries that - justifiably - fear what's happening to their democracy which is still finding its way out from a past behind the Iron Curtain. And that's not taking into account that Poland currently is a net beneficiary of 4 billion EUR annually: They pay 13 billion for being in the club and receive 17 billion in grants and subsidies. When watching a bitch and moan vs. facts discussion on youtube I looked up that figure for Poland but haven't looked into what it is for Hungary. However, all former Easter Bloc now member states are net beneficiaries in purely financial terms. In addition to having been forced to eliminate corruption in order to join and also getting enormous benefits (both financial and otherwise) from investments by corporations which would not have been made if they weren't members of the EU. I really sigh at the lack of knowledge people have and can't help thinking that the EU is something better than many of its citizens deserve. But my firm belief in democracy doesn't really allow me to think like that :/

Re:hm

[dunkelfalke]

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.

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an interesting thought. How could time be turned back? I think that the biggest mistake the EU has made was to let certain countries join even though they clearly weren't ready to do so. The second biggest was to look through the fingers at Greece's already cooked books to let them join the euro.

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

German here, so I probably have every right to drop this opinion here.
There are many mistakes that have been made in the past. The probably biggest mistake the EU made in the recent history was to listen to (humble in appearance) Angela Merkel's agenda concerning the refugee and migrant crisis.

Her (in)famous open boarder policy and "Wir schaffen das." turned out to be very oblivious of the actual capabilities and sentimentality of the people in her own country and by extension of the EU. As a 'leader' it was her job to understand what people are capable of, what their limitations are and to work with those limitations.
Think of her as the coach of a sports team. The job of the coach is to field people who are suited to complete the task. If they don't make the right choices and for example put the scrawniest player in the position of the quarter back, or if you prefer soccer, the best striker in the position of the goalkepper, you can't really blame the players alone if the entire thing ends up in a mess.
And here she failed terribly. Misinformation and exaggeration ran amok through the *media, scaring the people and encourage them to tilt at these windmills. It opened the door for populism and fear mongering, giving them a lot of leverage to push their own agendas. And Merkel as well as other government officials didn't do their job in addressing the raising concerns in their populations soon enough. On the contrary the important people pretended for too long that there aren't any problems while at the same time the media continued.

*You may call them alternative media, but I hate that term. In the end it's all just media. And even the mainstream media did their fair share of fear mongering since those kind of stories sell well.

Re:hm

[Anonymous Coward]

I (same anon as before) also agree that the migration crisis was completely mismanaged. However, my view of how things should've been managed also makes me recognize that there are substantial splits in the citizenry of the EU in terms of what the future should look like - considering how impopular my views are among some. I would (1) make the EU even more integrated (I want a European Federation ASAP) and (2) thus have the member states with a much greater consensus agree on an immigration policy (who's let in who isn't and how strongly the external borders - including the Mediterranean - are enforced). Right now each member has their own "outer door" to the same "house" within which movement is free and can choose to open the door almost however they want - it would make more sense to have just one door and jointly agree who gets to pass. Those states who have objected to Germany's open doors policy have in many cases in my opinion had valid points and in a more integrated EU Germany would - the way I envision it - thus have been more bound to take wishes to restrict immigration from outside into account. That said, I also think that it was simply unconscionable that former Eastern Bloc now EU members complained about their tiny refugee quotas. Those quotas were purely symbolic and just a chance for those states to show that they care about a problem affecting the entire EU and should've been happy to help in return for everything the EU has given them. We don't even need to consider anything else than purely monetary aid vs. the cost of taking care of a handful of refugees to see how the objections are absolutely obscene. Do note that I also think that certain migrants have values which are incompatible with European values and would in some (non-brute) way give them the choice of either adopting and accepting European customs and values or going somewhere else. No matter how difficult it is to find that "else". Europeans get along with each other and I feel at home everywhere in Europe (maybe because I'm a world traveler) and take pride in our values.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU is dictating which services its member governments can have a monopoly over.

EU east-west split again

[Anonymous Coward]

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 these services mobil payment is practically nonexistent in Hungary. The private sector never came up with a working solution.

The most recent project is: The state coerces the banks to implement full payment processing within 5 seconds. Fyi card payment processing takes several days till the money gets credited on the recipients account.

IMHO this is state granted monopoly to generate advancement on a market, where private sector fails. This is yet another case of applying advanced market rules on a developing market. The classical issue of the EU's east-west problem.

Source: I live in Hungary and work in this sector.

Re:EU east-west split again

[Tranzistors]

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.

Re:EU east-west split again

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody said anything about liking. BTW the hungarian system works also. That is not the question.

I would never say, that all private companies are full of shit, but state enterprises are angels. Or otherwise. You are right in theory. In theory the invisible force of the market makes the best service possible for a low price. But.

But if the market is miniscule and undeveloped, then the service price would be proportionally higher in the beginning. So high, hardly anybody would pay it. And the beginning can last decades. If practically everybody on the market needs the service, then state funding can be a reasonable choice. The other alternative is to support private corporations by taxbreaks or other means, to give an incentive to the market. As it happens with the electric car funding, and green energy.

In the last 20 years I have witnessed 3,6% average debit card payment cost, highly saint EU conform legislation that forced 1/4 of the average wage cost on local companies to pay to foreign (German, Austrian and Italian) companies from one day to another without gaining any competitive advantage, 200% margin by retail (owned by germans bought for peanuts from EU conform governments) on locally produced food consumed by locals. So no, I do not beleve, that protectionism and state involvement is necessary a source of evil. Of course most of these problems are solved now, some with emerging local competion, some with serious state intrusion, some with emigration.

"In any case, the point of the ruling is that Hungary is required to allow others to participate." Which also can mean they are required to allow German and Austrian companies to participate. The other side of the coin is that state owned enterprises tend to get into politically loyal hands, and these hands tend to steal money. Seeing what happened in Hungary before, significant portion of the population does not see any difference between an overpriced fully market conform foreign de facto monopolium, and an overpriced nepotist local company. They only care about if it is working or not, and is affordable or not. And the current service can provide that.

Re:EU east-west split again

[Anonymous Coward]

They only care about if it is working or not, and is affordable or not. And the current service can provide that.

In that case allowing others to participate should not hurt either, except those overpriced nepotist local companies, which may have to compete with lower prices.
And as far as de facto monopolies go, there's also EU regulation that puts them under scrutiny so they can't screw their customers once they've cornered the market.

Re:EU east-west split again

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case allowing others to participate should not hurt either

In many cases it has hurt. Did you read what I've written?

except those overpriced nepotist local companies

The nepotist company is the underdog to the ruling party. The ruling party can be overthrown by votes. Compare this with a situation where the ruling party is the underdog to the company. Deutsche Telekom, Stefan Quandt, Bertelsmann and Collegia privatstiftung cannot be thrown over from Hungary. The nepotist company reinvests his money in Hungary because that is the place they are ingrained. And these are big differences, in many's eyes.

And as far as de facto monopolies go, there's also EU regulation that puts them under scrutiny so they can't screw their customers once they've cornered the market.

Yes there is. 10-20 years after a de facto monopoly is established, they begin to do something with more or less success. By the time they wake up, the whole delivery infrastructure and the sales chain is owned by the monopoly on the local market and the market is dependent on them. Too big to fail.

And EU is a single market only for companies over some size. I cannot sell my insignificant things for example in France. I've tried to find accounting company that can document my activity. My accounting cost would have gone up twentyfold. French local regulations demanding me to be physically present in French to make my service, whereas in Hungary do not. And in reality I do not leave my workplace ever.

The central countries(DE,GB,F) do not care about me. All they care is their local elections, holding the empire together, and the share they have, compared to the other. They strip mined the Hungarian market and refunding fractions of this profit to my all corrupt government.

I would not mind living in the outskirts of EU. But the much larger problem is, that EU is losing political cohesion, economic and military weight in the world with an ever growing speed. By the time it will fall into pieces, I would live rather in a less dependent and more diversely dependent country. So I've learned Chinese, and make new friends.

Ruling party forces opposition off the grid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hungary is not fully free - all major media are controlled by people related to ruling party.

Having monopoly means that opposition is forced to use cash - otherwise government can easily track their expenditures.

Granted cotporations controlled system is not best but imho is better.

The best would be some eu controlled common system.

Huxit

[Anonymous Coward]

Hungary should probably leave the rotten EU.

Re:Huxit

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be thrown out actually.

EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it a corporate owned entity then?