Slashdot Mirror
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
"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!
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.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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.
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.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead