Primary tabs

European Payment Institutions Federation

EPIF agrees with the EBA’s chosen option being a single set of thresholds across all EU Member States, for the reasons set out in the consultation document, i.e. simplicity and consistency across the single market. Additionally, it is important that CCPs do not become a solution to poor communication between home and host Member State regulatory authorities.
EPIF support more flexibility in the criteria to take into account the wider range of business types and sizes potentially affected by the RTS.
EPIF is comfortable with the functions of a CCP as set out in Article 3.

Both the RTS and PSD2 make clear that the primary purpose of the CCP is to function as an intermediary between the EMI or PI and the host Member State. Many EEA-wide businesses operate a single Compliance regime, with a centre of excellence often located in the home Member State. This ensures access to business leaders and facilitates strong business-wide communication. In some cases, the central compliance team may choose to sub-contract in-country regulatory relations to, for example, a local law firm. These outsourcing arrangements may be a good approach to sourcing in-country CCPs, but in such cases the role of the CCP would be limited to ensuring an understanding of local requirements is communicated for implementation to the business, to acting as a capable and authoritative representative of the firm to the competent authority, and being a conduit of information between competent authority and firm. EPIF believes that the RTS allow for such an approach and we welcome the EBA’s thoughtful drafting.

In addition, it is important that the RTS allow flexibility for the firm to choose how to carry out the requirements of a CCP. This not only helps reduce cost and maintain effectiveness and efficiency, it also ensures no unintended tax liabilities would arise.
European Payment Institutions Federation