1. Are postal transfers as defined by the Universal Postal Union, which are not made in paper form but by electronic means, excluded from the scope of PSD2?

Article 3(g) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2) excludes from the scope of its application payment transactions based on a set of paper- based documents drawn on the payment service provider with a view to placing funds at the disposal of the payee, including postal money orders which are paper-based (under point vii). The limitation of the application of this exclusion to transactions based on paper documents is further clarified in recital 22 of PSD2, which states that, where the Directive covers all types of electronic payment services, it would not be appropriate for the rules to apply “where the transfer is based on a paper cheque, paper-based bill of exchange, promissory note or other instrument, paper based vouchers or cards drawn upon a payment service provider or other party with a view to placing funds at the disposal of the payee”. A regard to the first question, only payment transactions based on postal money orders in paper-based form should be excluded from the scope of PSD2.

2. If postal transfers, as defined by the Universal Postal Union, in both electronic and paper format, are inseparable from the postal operator’s accounting system, do paper-based postal transfers also fall outside the scope of PSD2?

Postal money orders initiated on paper benefit from the exclusion in Article 3(g)(vii) PSD2 regardless of how they are treated in the accounting system of a postal operator. Postal money orders which are initiated electronically not on paper, on the other hand, do not benefit from the exclusion in article 3(g)(vii), again regardless of how they are treated in the accounting system of a postal operator.

3. Is the payment institution entitled to credit funds to the payment service customers’ funds accounts where the money of the payment service users is kept separate?

There is no prohibition in PSD2 on the same payment account of the payment service user being credited with funds received by the payment service user both via payment transactions within scope of PSD2 and from payment transactions excluded from PSD2. This is without prejudice to the safeguarding requirements in Article 10(1)(a) PSD2, in particular, the provisions on the prohibition of commingling of the funds which have been received from the payment service users or through another payment service provider for the execution of payment transactions with the funds of any natural or legal person other than payment service users on whose behalf the funds are held.

4. Can a payment institution that is also a postal service provider simultaneously provide both PSD2 regulated services and services related to payments but outside the scope of PSD2?

Article 18(1)(c) of PSD2 provides that entities authorised as payment institutions (including post office giro institutions authorised as payment institutions pursuant to national law as in the case described by the submitter) shall be entitled to engage in business activities other than the provision of payment services, having regard to applicable Union and national law. Accordingly, a post office giro institution authorised as a payment institution can provide both payment services regulated under the PSD2 and services related to payments falling outside the scope of PSD2 including via the exclusions from its scope laid down in Article 3. This is without prejudice to Article 11(5) PSD2.

Disclaimer:

The answer clarifies provisions already contained in the applicable legislation. It does not extend in any way the rights and obligations deriving from such legislation; nor does it introduce any additional requirements for the concerned operators and competent authorities. The answer is 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.