Generally, EPIF agrees with proposed Guidelines 1 to 6, but we would like to underline the importance of the Home State Principle and its application to the complaints procedure for alleged infringements of the PSD2. This Principle is a founding block of the Single Market, providing legal certainty, removing the complexity of complying with 28 different regimes and mitigating the threat of regulatory competition. It further serves as an incentive for cross-border activity within the EU.
As such, when customers file a complaint, they should do so before the relevant authority of the PSP’s Home Member State. If a customer has filed a complaint to a host Member State, that Member State should forward it to the relevant PSP’s Home State for review and processing.
This Principle is especially important given that the National Competent Authority (NCA) will analyse and aggregate the data, notably to “ensure and monitor [PSPs’] effective compliance” with the PSD2, as per Article 100 of the Directive. In our view, this competence lies solely with the Home State.
Generally, EPIF agrees with proposed Guideline 2. We would however encourage the EBA to add to the list a requirement for the complainant to state the nature of their relationship with the PSP that is subject to the complaint. That is to say, when the complainant is a business (as opposed to a consumer), is that business a customer, supplier, competitor etc.
EPIF agrees with proposed Guideline 3.
EPIF agrees with proposed Guideline 4. It would however be useful to know what the NCAs will do with the aggregate report - will the aggregate analysis serve for internal analysis only, or will it be shared with other NCAs, or even made public in an annual report, for instance?