Primary tabs



As one of the largest Payment Initiation Service Provider (PISP) with business activities in 13 European countries, SOFORT GmbH welcomes the opportunity to contribute to EBA’s Consultation Paper on draft Regulatory Technical Standards on the framework for cooperation and exchange of information between competent authorities for passport notifications, under PSD2.

Please find SOFORT’s comments below.

1) Do you agree with the draft RTS on passport notifications under the PSD2? If not, outline why you disagree and how the RTS could be improved?

Before commenting on the draft RTS on passport notifications SOFORT would like to recall that the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services on a cross-border basis are one of the most valuable achievements of the Single Market in payments. As a European company providing its payment services in 12 EU Member States and Switzerland we are strongly advocating that the principle of home Member State supervision should under no circumstances be subject to further restrictions based on the draft RTS on passport notifications.

This having been said, we would like to comment on the following points:

- On Article 2: In order to facilitate the exchange of information and to minimize the administrative burden SOFORT proposes to define English as the common language to exchange information between competent authorities.
- On Article 2: SOFORT believes that the transmission of information by electronic means, followed by an electronic confirmation of receipt by the competent authorities, should be defined as the standard communication channel. The duty of transmission by post, in contrast, renders the communication unnecessarily complicated.
- On Article 3: SOFORT expresses the concern that with regard to the draft RTS as set out in the present Consultation Paper it could be possible for competent authorities to intentionally delay the passport notification processing. This might be the case where competent authorities interpret Article 3 in such a way that the one-month and the three-month period only starts as soon as they assess the completeness and accuracy of the information provided in the application of the PI. In order to avoid intentional delay, the starting date should correspond to the date of receipt of a complete application.
Yes, we do agree.
Yes, we do agree.
Yes, we do agree.
Yes, we do agree.
Yes, we do agree.
Georg Schardt