- 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
- Status
-
Question under review
- Answer prepared by
-
Answer prepared by the European Commission because it is a matter of interpretation of Union law.