Response to consultation on the Technical Standards on the EBA Register under PSD2

Go back

Question 1: Do you agree with the option the EBA has chosen regarding the transmission of information by NCAs to the EBA? If not, please provide your reasoning

Yes.

Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed criteria and functionalities related to the search of information in the EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.

It is necessary that the “responsible competent authority” criterion be clarified, by explicitly mentioning that the search shall be made by the name of the “registration/authorisation authority”.

Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed non-functional requirements related to the operation of the EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.

Yes.

Question 4: Do you agree with the way how the EBA proposes to fulfil the mandate in terms of the natural and legal persons that will need to be included in the future EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.

a) Regarding the registration of the account information service providers (AISP)’ agents we would like to point out that Article 33 from PSD2 requires AISP to provide information only related to their agents situated in host Member States.
Consequently Article 3 letter h) from the ITS should be completed as follows:
“agents of account information service provider providing services in a Member State other than their home Member State“.
b) We do not agree with the addition of the “excluded service providers”, since the EBA mandate on the issue is limited to collecting information representing the description of the notified activities excluded from the scope of PSD2. Please also check the reasoning from Q7.

Question 5: Do you agree with the option the EBA has chosen regarding the detail of information for the natural and legal persons that will be contained in the future EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.

Yes.

Question 6: Do you agree with the EBA that the contact details, dates of authorisation/registration, and the services provided in the Host Member States, should not be included in the EBA register? If not, please provide your reasoning, which should also include the benefits for payment service users and other interested parties of having this information in the EBA Register.

Yes.

Question 7: Do you agree with the extension of the information for the service providers excluded from the scope of the PSD2 that will be entered in the EBA register? If not, please provide your reasoning.

No, we do not agree.
The EBA is legally not able to add this specific information requirement under its PSD2 mandate.
According with the PSD2, the competent authorities should inform EBA and made publicly available in their national registers only the description of the activity provided by the “excluded service providers” (Article 37 from PSD2).
Apart from the issue of EBA mandate, please note that these service providers are not licensed nor supervised.
The “excluded service providers” which provide services from point (k) of Article 3 from PSD2 have no obligation to inform the authority on the changes that affect the accuracy of information initially provided or if they decided to terminate the activity notified.

Question 8: Do you agree with the scope of the information on agents of payment institutions, exempted payment institutions, account information service providers, electronic money institutions and exempted electronic money institutions to be included in the EBA register? If not, please provide your reasoning.

Yes.

Please select which category best describes you and/or your organisation

[Public administration"]"

Name of organisation

National Bank of Romania - Regulation and Licensing Department