Response to consultation on the Guidelines on the conditions to be met to benefit from an exemption from contingency measures under Article 33(6) of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 (RTS on SCA & CSC)

Go back

Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s assessments on KPIs and the calculation of uptime and downtime and the ASPSP submission of a plan to publishing statistics, the options that EBA considered and progressed or discarded, and the requirements proposed in Guideline 2 and 3? If not, please provide detail on other KPIs or calculation methods that you consider more suitable and your reasoning for doing so.

Guideline 2: We agree with the proposal.
Guideline 3: The proposal should be amended to allow the comparization of statistical data for the new interface with the average of the KPIs of all the ASPSPs channels.

Question 2: Do you agree with the EBA’s assessments on stress testing and the options it considered and progressed or discarded, and the requirements proposed in Guideline 4? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the proposal.

Question 3: Do you agree with the EBA’s assessments on monitoring? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the EBA's conclusion that CAs cannot be required to monitor KPIs as a condition to exempt ASPSPs from a fallback solution. However it should be clarified when and how will the supervisioning authorities conduct this monitorization.

Question 4: Do you agree with the EBA’s assessments on obstacles, the options it considered and progressed or discarded, and the requirements proposed in Guideline 5? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the proposal.

Question 5: Do you agree with the EBA’s assessments for design and testing, the options it considered and progressed or discarded, and the requirements proposed Guideline 6? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the proposal.

Question 6: Do you agree with the EBA’s assessment for ‘widely used’, the options it considered and discarded, and the requirements proposed Guideline 7? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the proposal.

Question 7: Do you agree with the EBAs assessment to use the service level targets and statistical data for the assessment of resolving problems without undue delay, the options it discarded, and the requirements proposed Guideline 8? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the proposal.

Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed Guideline 9 and the information submitted to the EBA in the Assessment Form in the Annex? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree with the proposal.

Question 9: Do you have any particular concerns regarding the envisaged timelines for ASPSPs to meet the requirements set out in these Guidelines prior to the September 2019 deadline, including providing the technical specifications and testing facilities in advance of the March 2019 deadline?

Yes we do have several concerns. Do note that it is a very demanding calendar for the vast scope of changes and developments needed regarding processes, systems, solutions and channels that support payment services.
It should be considered an extension of the timeline for an additional 18 months. An ulterior planning phase of the services to be implemented in the new interface would be a good solution to fulfill the directive requirements.
We also consider that the competent authorities should alert all the ASPSPs in advance for all updates in the technical specifications, providing information relating the possible impacts.

Question 10: Do you agree with the level of detail set out in the draft Guidelines as proposed in this Consultation Paper or would you have expected either more or less detailed requirements on a particular aspect? Please provide your reasoning.

We consider that the Guidelines should better detail the requirements of the supporting templates for the presentation of KPIs (guideline 2 and 3)

Name of organisation

Caixa Geral de Depósitos