- Question ID
-
2023_6675
- Legal act
- Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
- Topic
- Monetary amount of the professional indemnity insurance
- Article
-
5
- Paragraph
-
2 and 3
- COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs/Recommendations
- Not applicable
- Article/Paragraph
-
na
- Type of submitter
-
Competent authority
- Subject matter
-
Consideration of own funds requirements as a comparable guarantee to the PII
- Question
-
Would it be acceptable to consider, has a possible comparable guarantee, an increase of own funds’ requirements, in an amount corresponding to the minimum monetary amount calculated in accordance with the EBA’s tool, while ensuring that this amount would be fulfilled with highly liquid assets?
- Background on the question
-
Under Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 November 2015 (“PSD2”), applicants that seek authorisation to provide payment initiation services and account information services are required to hold a professional indemnity insurance or a comparable guarantee in order to meet their liabilities in relation to these services.
Considering the difficulties experienced by applicants in obtaining an adequate professional indemnity insurance or a comparable guarantee, in several member states - as noted by EBA in its Opinion on EBA’s response to the call for advice on the review of PSD2 – would it be acceptable to consider, has a possible comparable guarantee, an increase of own funds’ requirements, in an amount corresponding to the minimum monetary amount calculated in accordance with the EBA’s tool, while ensuring that this amount would be fulfilled with highly liquid assets, in order to guarantee a swift availability of the funds to be mobilised in case of need?
We consider that the question meets the criteria to ensure that questions are answered by EBA, since it is necessary clarification/guidance on the subject.
- Submission date
- Final publishing date
-
- Final answer
-
Article 5(2) and (3), along with Recital 35 of PSD2 stipulate that entities that apply for authorisation to provide Payment Initiation Services (PIS) and those that apply for registration to provide Account Information Services (AIS) must hold a professional indemnity insurance (PII) or a comparable guarantee to ensure that they can cover their liabilities vis-à-vis the account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) or the payment service users (PSUs).
The EBA Guidelines (EBA/GL/2017/09) on authorisation under PSD2 provide that, as part of the authorisation/registration procedure under PSD2, the applicant for the provision of PIS or AIS should provide to the national competent authority, “as evidence of a professional indemnity insurance or comparable guarantee that is compliant with EBA Guidelines on the criteria on how to stipulate the minimum monetary amount of the professional insurance or other comparable guarantee (EBA/GL/2017/08) and Article 5(2) and 5(3) of PSD2”: “a) an insurance contract or other equivalent document confirming the existence of professional indemnity insurance or a comparable guarantee, with a cover amount that is compliant with the referred EBA Guidelines, showing the coverage of the relevant liabilities; b) documentation of how the applicant has calculated the minimum amount in a way that is compliant with the referred EBA Guidelines, including all applicable components of the formula specified therein” (Article 18 of section 4.1 of the Guidelines and Article 12 of section 4.2 of the Guidelines).
PSD2 does not specify the type of “comparable guarantee” that can be used in accordance with Article 5(2) and (3). It does not either specifically prohibit the use of own funds, as defined in Article 4 point (46) of PSD2, as a comparable guarantee for the purpose of Article 5(2) and (3) of PSD2. Unlike in Article 10(1)(b) of the PSD2, which relates to the use of “an insurance policy or some other comparable guarantee from an insurance company or a credit institution” for safeguarding purposes, Article 5(2) and (3) do not specifically require that the comparable guarantee should be issued by an insurance company or a third party.
The use of the term “comparable” guarantee, together with the provisions in Recital 35 which provides that “the professional indemnity insurance and a comparable guarantee […] should be interchangeable”, suggest that, in order for an AIS or PIS provider to be able to use own funds as a comparable guarantee for the purpose of Article 5(2) and (3) of PSD2, the respective PIS/AIS provider should provide evidence, to the satisfaction of the relevant national competent authority, that the respective guarantee (in the form of own funds) offers the same protection as a PII against the liabilities referred to in Article 5(2) (for PIS) and Article 5(3) of PSD2 (for AIS).
More specifically, this suggests that, in order to be able to use own funds as a comparable guarantee for the purpose of Article 5(2) and (3) of PSD2, the respective PIS/AIS provider should provide at least evidence, to the satisfaction of the relevant national competent authority, that: (i) the level of the guarantee meets the minimum monetary amount determined in accordance with the EBA Guidelines (EBA/GL/2017/08) on the criteria on how to stipulate the minimum monetary amount of the professional indemnity insurance or other comparable guarantee under Article 5(4) of PSD2; and that (ii) appropriate safeguards are put in place to ensure that the own funds are ringfenced in the event of insolvency of the PIS/AIS provider and can be used for meeting the liabilities referred to in Article 5(2) (for PIS) and Article 5(3) of PSD2 (for AIS), in case of the insolvency of the PIS or AIS provider.
Disclaimer: The answer clarifies provisions already contained in the applicable legislation. They do not extend in any way the rights and obligations deriving from such legislation nor do they introduce any additional requirements for the concerned operators and competent authorities. The answers are merely intended to assist natural or legal persons, including competent authorities and Union institutions and bodies in clarifying the application or implementation of the relevant legal provisions. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union is competent to authoritatively interpret Union law. The views expressed in the internal Commission Decision cannot prejudge the position that the European Commission might take before the Union and national courts.
- Status
-
Final Q&A
- Answer prepared by
-
Answer prepared by the European Commission because it is a matter of interpretation of Union law.
Disclaimer
The Q&A refers to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.