We believe that the approach taken, in particular regarding the general predictability provided to payment institutions, is sound. In particular, we would like to stress that we find the definition that reports need to be annual and electronic advantageous for payment institutions, as the obligation can be quantified in advance.
We furthermore consider appropriate the possibility for the host CA to choose a subset of relevant payment institutions based on the established specific circumstances. The nature and extent of the presence in different member states does vary to a considerable extent and we welcome the possibility given to the host CA to take such factors into consideration.
Having said that, we actually believe that the RTS could go one step further and establish guidelines for the host CAs that limit the possibility to request reporting to situations, in which the presence in a country has a certain extent. In particular, we believe that branches, which are of small scale or limited scope, should be exempted from the reporting obligations. The administrative burden given to them might from our perspective be avoided and, in case of the additional reporting established by article 11, is even disproportionate.
In this sense, we believe it is also the aim of PSD2 to foster the presence of payment institutions across various member states and to avoid unnecessary barriers, which would prevent payment institutions from establishing branches in other member states or induce payment institutions to close existing branches. If now for example the presence of one employee only in a certain country (or a branch whose role is merely sales support) triggers comprehensive reporting requirements, we consider that this does exactly represent such an undesired barrier.
In addition to our statement regarding Question 4, we would like to raise the following points, where clarification would be helpful:
As mentioned, we believe that the use of standardised templates across all member states gives predictability to payment institutions and reduces the additional administrative effort. However, we noted that the wording used is that the report “shall include” the mentioned parts. Please clarify that the list of information to be provided is complete and cannot be extended at the discretion of the host CA.
Furthermore, we understand that the draft RTS does not establish a language, in which the reports may / have to be submitted. We would appreciate if the rule established in article 3 of the draft RTS, according to which the communication between the different CAs shall take place “in a language customary in the field of finance”, would explicitly be applied also to the communication between the payment institution and the host CA (in particular the reports).
We noted that, contrarily to Article 10, Article 11 does not provide for the possibility that the host CA limits the reporting obligations to a subset of payment institutions considered as relevant by them. We cannot see a reason why such possibility should not be given regarding this (more extensive) reporting obligation. In case it is intended anyways that a limitation regarding the reporting as per Article 10 would automatically extend to the additional reporting according to article 11, clarification seems appropriate.
Independently of the foregoing, reference shall be made to our statement regarding Question 4. We believe that the argumentation brought forward there does apply to the reporting established under Article 11 to an even greater extent. Due to the nature of the reporting, the administrative effort is of greater extent here and we believe that small scale or limited scope branches should be exempted from the obligation to provide individual reports to their host CA.