- Question ID
- Legal act
- Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
- Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
Article 36(1) and Article 36(2)
- Name of institution / submitter
Reflow - Manish Garg
- Country of incorporation / residence
- Type of submitter
- Subject matter
ASPSP providing updated payment status to PISP
Are account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) required to provide information on the initiation and execution of the payment transaction, including updates, in order for a payment initiation service provider (PISP) to comply with Article 46(a) PSD2 and pursuant to Article 36(1)(b) RTS?
- Background on the question
The purpose of the payment status is to enable a PISP or a PSU to identify if a payment instruction has been accepted, successfully processed and credited to the payee. It is important to note that currently, in the context of PIS, ASPSPs only provide information on the status of the payment at the point in time at which the payment order is submitted by the PISP. Accordingly, ASPSPs do not provide any subsequent status updates on the payment order to the PISP. However, PISPs need to know the status of the payment execution including additional status once the payments are executed (i.e. post initiation of the payment order) for processing on the agreed execution date by the ASPSP. 1) PISP needs to determine with sufficient certainty that the payment will complete and subsequently can provide the same certainty to the payment service user (PSU)/ merchant. The earlier the merchant knows a payment is rejected, the quicker it can offer alternative payment solutions to a customer/PSU. This avoids abandoned carts and loss of revenue 2) Customers may incur penalty fees and excess interest if they do not know their payment has failed.
- Submission date
- Final publishing date
- Final answer
The submitter refers to Article 36(1)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389, which largely reproduces Article 66(4)(b) of PSD2. Article 66(4)(b) of PSD2 provides that the account servicing payment service provider (ASPSP) shall ‘immediately after receipt of the payment order from a payment initiation service provider, provide or make available all information on the initiation of the payment transaction and all information accessible to the ASPSP regarding the execution of the payment transaction to the payment initiation service provider’.
The word ‘immediately’ requires the ASPSP to provide to payment initiation service providers (PISPs) all information on the initiation of the payment transaction and all information accessible to the ASPSP on the execution of the payment transaction immediately after the receipt of the payment order communicated by the PISP. This means that if the ASPSP is not aware immediately after the receipt of the payment order whether the payment will be executed or not, it is not necessarily required to provide such information to the PISP at a later stage. However, according to Article 36(1)(c) of the Delegated Regulation, the ASPSP shall provide, upon request, a yes/no answer whether the amount necessary for the execution of a payment transaction is available on the payment account of the payer. The yes/no answer should be based on the same analysis the ASPSP would carry out to determine whether or not to execute a payment order received directly from the payment service user (PSU).
With regard to the reference by the submitter to Article 46(a) of PSD2 and the requirement for PISPs to provide information to the PSU on the initiation of the payment, the scope of the information requirement in Article 46(a) is limited to a “confirmation of the successful initiation of the payment order with the payer’s ASPSP” and does not entail the confirmation of the payment execution.
This question goes beyond matters of consistent and effective application of the regulatory framework. A Directorate General of the Commission (Directorate General for Financial Stability, Financial services and Capital Markets Union) has prepared the answer, albeit that only the Court of Justice of the European Union can provide definitive interpretations of EU legislation. This is an unofficial opinion of that Directorate General, which the European Banking Authority publishes on its behalf. The answers are not binding on the European Commission as an institution. You should be aware that the European Commission could adopt a position different from the one expressed in such Q&As, for instance in infringement proceedings or after a detailed examination of a specific case or on the basis of any new legal or factual elements that may have been brought to its attention.
- Answer prepared by
Answer prepared by the European Commission because it is a matter of interpretation of Union law.