European War 6 Mod Apk 1804

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Lorin Cupples

unread,
Aug 3, 2024, 4:57:22 PM8/3/24
to roigaumettfab

Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing Directive 2014/94/EU (AFIR) is a fundamental cornerstone to support the transition towards more sustainable modes of transport, and to put the Union on track for the full decarbonisation of the transport sector by 2050.

The uniform application of AFIR throughout the Union is essential to provide seamless passenger and freight zero-emission road transport, avoid barriers to trade and to allow manufacturers and operators of alternative fuels infrastructure to attain economies of scale.

To that end, the present Questions and Answers have been prepared by the European Commission services to address specific technical questions and comments asked by members in the context of the Sustainable Transport Forum, which is the main expert group of the European Commission in the field of alternative fuels infrastructure, and by other market actors.

These Questions and Answers were prepared by the services of the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport of the European Commission and does not commit the European Commission as such. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law.

By virtue of the very nature of regulations, the provisions of regulations generally have immediate effect in the national legal systems without it being necessary for the national authorities to adopt implementing measures. The extent to which additional specific national legislation may exceptionally be allowed in the absence of a specific provision empowering the Member States to do so is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and to be ultimately decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The requirements laid down in Article 5 apply to all publicly accessible recharging points, except where explicitly stated otherwise, for example Article 5(1), third sub paragraph only applies to recharging points above 50 kW deployed along the TEN-T network.

General context of the article: the obligations in Article 5(1) apply to the operator of the recharging point who needs to ensure recharging on an ad hoc basis at every recharging point operated by him. Recharging on an ad hoc basis means that an end user purchases a recharging service, without being required to register, conclude a written agreement or enter into a commercial relationship with the operator of the recharging point beyond the mere purchase of the recharging service (Article 2(47)), and without the need to enter into a contract with a mobility service provider (recital 36).

The purpose and functionalities of the terminals and devices referred to in Article 5(1) (a) and Article 5.1 (b) are essentially the same: they allow for payments to take place. Their main difference lies in the way they function.

The regulation does not specifically require that the device reads physical payment cards meaning that a device that reads payment cards embedded in digital apps (e.g. a mobile wallet application) is equally sufficient to meet the requirement as long as other requirements of Article 5(1) are being met in particular with regards to the payment instrument being used and the requirements related to ad hoc recharging. Typically, current devices in the market with a contactless functionality are capable of reading both physical and digitally embedded payment cards.

However, the above explanation refers to payments through a digital wallet or mobile phone application issued for example by a credit institution, payment institution or e-money institution that in general is used for payment services. In contrast, devices that only accept a smartphone application of an operator of recharging point or a mobility service provider, even if it had a credit card embedded in it, would not appear to meet the requirements of Article 5(1). According to Recital 36 and Article 2(47) of AFIR ad hoc recharging must be possible without the need to enter into a contract with the operator of the recharging or a mobility service provider that goes beyond the mere purchase of the recharging service. An application operated by mobility service provider (MSP) or a charge point operator (CPO) would always require the registration of the end user and the acceptance of the terms of use which means a contract is being established between the end user and the CPO or MSP that goes beyond the mere purchase of a recharging service.

Article 5(1) of AFIR stipulates that the operator must accept electronic payment through devices using an internet connection and allowing for secure payment transactions. That includes all devices that meet those requirements, including those built into the recharging station as well as mobile devices of the end user.

In principle a static or dynamic QR code referring the user to a website through which secure payment transactions are carried out through a mobile phone could be in line with this provision. However, no matter which technical solution is adopted it must ensure a secure payment transaction. Therefore, a static QR code could be in line with AFIR as long as it is readable and the security of the payment transaction is ensured.

Parking fees (fees charged for parking a car irrespectively of the presence of a recharging point or the purchase of a recharging service) are not under the scope of AFIR and neither is the contract between the end user and the operator of the parking area. Therefore, ad hoc payments must be available in line with Art 5(1) at all publicly accessible recharging points within that parking area, also in cases where the user has to pay a parking fee and where the operator of the recharging point and the operator of the parking area are the same entity.

AFIR does not provide specific thresholds or criteria for assessing if prices charged are reasonable, easily and clearly comparable, transparent and non-discriminatory. Compliance has to be assessed on a case by case basis and it is ultimately up to the European Court of Justice to assess compliance with this provision.

This sentence is meant to clarify the preceding sentence of Article 5(3), which prohibits price discrimination between end users and mobility service providers or between different mobility service providers.

The last sentence of Article 5(3) intends to distinguish such price discrimination from normal practices of differentiating prices between customers that are not in the same legal or factual situation. Such price differentiation would be allowed on condition that it is proportionate and objectively justified.

Whether or not prices charged by operators comply with Art 5(3) will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and it is ultimately up to the European Court of Justice to assess compliance with this provision.

(...) leave discretion to market actors to determine the price components for ad hoc prices applied at publicly accessible recharging points with a power output of less than 50 kW. In this context, would it still be possible for Member States to adopt more stringent price requirements (e.g. mandating that prices must be based on the price kWh) in relation to the ad hoc price applied at publicly accessible recharging points with a power output of less than 50 kW?

By virtue of the very nature of regulations, the provisions of regulations generally have direct effect in the national legal systems without it being necessary for the national authorities to adopt implementing measures. The extent to which additional specific national legislation may exceptionally be allowed in the absence of a specific provision empowering the Member States to do so is to be assessed on a case by case basis, and to be ultimately decided by the European Court of Justice.

Article 5(4) of AFIR regulates the price setting by operators of publicly accessible recharging points. As regards operators of recharging points of less than 50 kW, it requires that information on all price components must be clearly and easily available. It also explicitly provides in which order certain price components must be communicated to end users.

Article 5(4) does not specify from what moment onwards an occupancy fee can be applied by the operator of a publicly accessible recharging point with a power output equal to or more than 50 kW. By contrast, Article 5(4) does specify the objective of the occupancy fee that may be applied, i.e. to discourage long occupancy of the recharging point. Any fee applied pursuant to that article must be proportionate and suitable to achieve that objective.

That assessment must be carried out on a case by case basis. However, an occupancy fee that is applied from the start of a recharging session prima facie does not appear to be proportional to the objective of discouraging long occupancy of the recharging point as it would apply also to situations where the recharging point is used only for the time necessary to recharge the vehicle.

The first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) set out obligations that likely have an impact on the design of recharging stations, so the co-legislators decided that it was sensible to allow the market to adapt to these new requirements. They therefore agreed to require that these new rules should only apply to publicly accessible recharging points with a power output equal to or more than 50 kW deployed from 13 April 2024.

The obligations in the third subparagraph of Article 5(4) apply from the date of application of the Regulation (13 April 2024) to all publicly accessible recharging points with a power output of less than 50 kW.

AFIR does not address transaction fees. However, for recharging points with a power output of more than 50 kW the regulation clearly stipulates that prices must be based on kWh and that only an occupancy fee can be charged in addition. This excludes the possibility to charge transaction fees at those recharging points.

c80f0f1006
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages