- The Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled that the impression of a rejection of foreign SEPA accounts already constitutes an infringement of competition law.
- An actual refusal is not required; the communication itself may violate the SEPA Regulation.
- This case concerned a customer with a magazine subscription who wanted to pay from a Lithuanian account.
- The company requested a new SEPA direct debit mandate and made it clear that only German accounts would be accepted.
- The Federal Court of Justice had previously dealt with similar issues and rejected foreign SEPA accounts as inadmissible.
- Companies must ensure that their practices and communications comply with the SEPA Regulation.
- The decision has a significant impact on the competitiveness of companies in Europe.
In a recent ruling, the Düsseldorf Regional Court decided that even the impression that a company rejects foreign SEPA accounts constitutes anti-competitive discrimination. An actual rejection is therefore not necessary. The ruling highlights the importance of the correct handling of SEPA payments for companies and the need for careful communication with customers.
Background to the case
The case underlying the ruling concerned a consumer with a magazine subscription. The customer asked the company to collect the charges from his Lithuanian account in future. The defendant responded by requesting a new SEPA direct debit mandate and stating that direct debits could only be collected from German accounts, and this communication from the company was ultimately decisive for the court’s decision. Although the company had not actually rejected the direct debit from the Lithuanian account, the court considered the wording of the reply to be in breach of the SEPA Regulation.
Violation of SEPA regulation and competition law
The Düsseldorf Regional Court judged the company’s declaration to be a violation of Art. 9 para. 3 SEPA Regulation and therefore an infringement of competition law. The decisive factor is whether the consumer is given the impression that only accounts from certain countries are accepted. A de facto steering of consumer behavior by the company is sufficient for this and the infringement of competition lies in the fact that the foreign payment details should have been accepted. With the e-mail to the customer, the defendant had thus violated Art. 9 para. 2 of the SEPA Regulation. This provision prohibits payees from specifying the EU member state in which the payer’s account must be held.
Fundamental legal question and similar judgments
The decision of the Düsseldorf Regional Court is one of a series of rulings dealing with the question of whether companies may reject foreign SEPA accounts. Both the Federal Court of Justice and the Regional Court of Düsseldorf itself had already dealt with this issue in the past and classified the restriction to German bank accounts as impermissible SEPA discrimination.the fundamental legal question that arises is to what extent companies are obliged to accept foreign SEPA accounts. The SEPA Regulation provides for a clear regulation here: A rejection of foreign SEPA accounts is generally inadmissible.The recent ruling by the Düsseldorf Regional Court now clarifies that even the mere impression of such a rejection is sufficient to constitute a breach of competition law. Companies must therefore be extremely careful when communicating about the acceptance of SEPA accounts and the decision has far-reaching implications for all companies that accept SEPA payments. They must ensure that both their actual practices and their communication with customers are in line with the SEPA Regulation. Otherwise, they risk being warned or sued for breaches of competition law. Overall, the ruling shows that the correct implementation of the SEPA Regulation is not only a legal obligation for companies, but also a question of competitiveness. This is because customers today expect payments to be processed smoothly across national borders. Companies that create obstacles here run the risk of losing customers and putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
