Response to consultation on Guidelines on authorisation and registration under PSD2
Go back
Also the Guidelines should use the PSD 2 terminology or define other terms used throughout its provisions (e.g. “key systems”, “key data” or “key persons”).
Regarding the way information is to be submitted to the competent authority, we would prefer to keep most of the information as templates. This solution is in line with the actual national procedure, provides a consistent view and is easier to be assessed by the CA.
Secondly, as a general remark, we think that the information required from applicants is overly detailed considering the PSD2 wording and spirit, the specificity of the activity and that the mutatis mutandis application of the requirements for credit institutions cannot be justified in this case (e.g. the request for providing information on the income statement and balance sheet forecast in stress scenarios is excessive in our opinion, given that PSD2 does not include any provisions related to the obligation for competent authorities and/or IPs to perform stress tests/simulations as a risk management instrument and, additionally there are no Guidelines or methodologies in this respect).
As for the shareholders, we consider that the guideline should contain proportionate assessment criteria and a correspondence between those criteria and the documents submitted (keeping in mind that the assessment could include also hybrid institutions).
Regarding the applicants descriptions on the business continuity arrangements (Guideline 11), it is necessary to clarify whether targeted information (e.g. period of time and the operative procedure for the PSU entering into possession of the safeguarded funds, in the case of unexecuted or pending payment transactions due to termination of the contract) are additional to those detailed in Guideline 7 (Art. 10 of PSD2), since this situation should be covered by the protection mechanism for safeguarding payment service users funds (PSU of the payment services listed in point 1-6 of Annex I, PSD2); in our opinion, it would be necessary to cover only situations where PSU interests are not protected by the safeguarding mechanism, i.e. payment services listed in point 7-8 in Annex I, PSD 2 (AIS and PIS).
Finally, regarding those provisions requiring the transmission of contracts/manuals/internal regulations, the experience gained during the authorisation process of PIs revealed that this kind of documents had no relevance for the CA’s assessment. Thus, we consider that a description/summary of the information focused on the relevant PSD 2 list of required documents and information would be more appropriate.
Question 1: Do you consider the objectives of the Guidelines as identified by the EBA to be plausible and complete? If not, please provide your reasoning.
As a general remark, we consider EBA’s approach in developing these 4 guidelines to be valuable and offering a standardized method for the actors involved in the authorisation process. However, as regards the accomplishment of the objective set out in point c. (i.e. improved quality in the information provided by applicants), taking into consideration the experience gained during the authorisation process of PIs and the PSD2 spirit, we consider that the information should be provided keeping in mind the proportionality principle, considering the activity’s specificity and possible risks (we have in mind hybrid PIs).Also the Guidelines should use the PSD 2 terminology or define other terms used throughout its provisions (e.g. “key systems”, “key data” or “key persons”).
Question 2: Do you agree with the options the EBA has chosen regarding the identification of payment services by the applicant; the way information is to be submitted to the competent authority; the four-part structure of the Guidelines, and the inclusion of authorisation for electronic money institutions? If not, please provide your reasoning.
We agree that the identification of the payment services should be done by the applicant and with the Guidelines inclusion of a separate part for applicants that apply for authorisation as EMIs.Regarding the way information is to be submitted to the competent authority, we would prefer to keep most of the information as templates. This solution is in line with the actual national procedure, provides a consistent view and is easier to be assessed by the CA.
Question 3: Do you consider it helpful how the EBA has incorporated proportionality measures in the Guidelines in line with PSD2? If not, please explain your reasoning and propose alternative approaches.
Yes, introducing the proportionality principle (guideline 1.4) is indeed an appropriate measure but, in our opinion, still needs to be restated in order to clarify that in every case directors and persons responsible for the management of the payment institution possess experience and knowledge adequate to the institution’s size, internal organization and the complexity, nature, scope of its activities and the duties and responsibilities of the specific position.Question 4: Do you agree with the Guidelines on information required from applicants for the authorisation as payment institutions for the provision of services 1-8 of Annex I of PSD2, as set out in chapter 4.1? If not, please provide your reasoning.
In our opinion, those provisions of the guidelines concerning the possibility of being an applicant “in process of incorporation” are not in line with article 11 para.1 of PSD2 which states that an authorisation shall only be granted to a legal person established in a Member State. Therefore the undertaking should already be incorporated when submitting the application, and should provide the documents to prove their legal status; in our opinion, the guidelines should limit the possibility for transmitting any other preliminary documents that do not prove the incorporation of the legal person (PSPs not providing exclusively AIS).Secondly, as a general remark, we think that the information required from applicants is overly detailed considering the PSD2 wording and spirit, the specificity of the activity and that the mutatis mutandis application of the requirements for credit institutions cannot be justified in this case (e.g. the request for providing information on the income statement and balance sheet forecast in stress scenarios is excessive in our opinion, given that PSD2 does not include any provisions related to the obligation for competent authorities and/or IPs to perform stress tests/simulations as a risk management instrument and, additionally there are no Guidelines or methodologies in this respect).
As for the shareholders, we consider that the guideline should contain proportionate assessment criteria and a correspondence between those criteria and the documents submitted (keeping in mind that the assessment could include also hybrid institutions).
Regarding the applicants descriptions on the business continuity arrangements (Guideline 11), it is necessary to clarify whether targeted information (e.g. period of time and the operative procedure for the PSU entering into possession of the safeguarded funds, in the case of unexecuted or pending payment transactions due to termination of the contract) are additional to those detailed in Guideline 7 (Art. 10 of PSD2), since this situation should be covered by the protection mechanism for safeguarding payment service users funds (PSU of the payment services listed in point 1-6 of Annex I, PSD2); in our opinion, it would be necessary to cover only situations where PSU interests are not protected by the safeguarding mechanism, i.e. payment services listed in point 7-8 in Annex I, PSD 2 (AIS and PIS).
Finally, regarding those provisions requiring the transmission of contracts/manuals/internal regulations, the experience gained during the authorisation process of PIs revealed that this kind of documents had no relevance for the CA’s assessment. Thus, we consider that a description/summary of the information focused on the relevant PSD 2 list of required documents and information would be more appropriate.