Response to consultation on the Technical Standards on the EBA Register under PSD2
Go back
In general, Finance Denmark supports the EBA’s conclusion that the technical requirements related to the development, operation and maintenance of the EBA Register should contain high level technical requirements regarding insertion of information, user access and the search of information.
The option that EBA proposes in the Consultation Paper will guarantee that the information is transmitted from the NCAs to the EBA a day after the information in the national registers is amended.
While we recognize the difficulties of choosing a technical solution that will suit both the EBA and the NCAs, we must stress that it is of utmost importance to have a registry that is both automated and updated in near real time, meaning without delay after the information in the national registers is amended.
Finance Denmark would therefore encourage the EBA to recommend all NCAs use the automated process in order to ensure updates are made not only with-out delay, but immediately.
PSD2 aims to support the continued development of an integrated internal market for safe electronic payments. This requires a high level of trust in the information contained in the registry. In our opinion this can only be achieved with information updated in real time.
The proposed time lag represents a risk to both the banks and ultimately the end customer and does not provide the necessary consumer protection in line with the spirit of PSD2.
The time lag is especially critical when it comes to revocation of the authorisation or registration of a payment institution/third party provider. Speed is essential, and this calls for an automated and real time process.
Finally the emergence and rapid development of instant payments will only intensify the demand for real time data, i.e. to minimize the potential loses in case of fraudulent transactions.
We strongly support the suggestion made by some NCAs that the EBA Register should be “machine readable”, which would allow for an automated and much more sufficient process when extracting information from the registry, especially when the RTS on SCA and CSC enters into force.
In our opinion the benefits from a “machine readable” functionality can not only be measured as stated by the EBA paragraph 21 of the CP: “the marginal added value will be less than the cost endured the EBA”. In our opinion it would mean significant costs for both bank and non-bank payment service providers, if the EBA Register is not machine readable.
In the case that it proves impossible for the EBA to take on board the above mentioned concerns, we would advocate an automated download function of the full list.
As stated in our comment to Q1 an automated and real time registry is essential to achieve the goals of PSD2, to ensure consumer protection and the trust and use of electronic payment services.
Further to our comments to Q1 and Q2 we would welcome that the key functional requirements for the registry is to be available 24/7 and updated in real-time. Otherwise there is a risk that the registry might become redundant.
While we recognize that the EBA is limited by its mandate in article 15 of PSD2 (referring to article 14), we support a comprehensive registry of all payment service providers offering account information services or payment initiation services.
We would therefor encourage the EBA to also incorporate credit institutions offering these services into the EBA Register. The EBA should at least make it possible on a voluntary basis for credit institutions to be listed on the register.
A comprehensive registry would ensure equality of treatment of all payment service providers and help fulfill the aim of PSD2 of creating an efficient competitive European market for payment services.
Question 1: Do you agree with the option the EBA has chosen regarding the transmission of information by NCAs to the EBA? If not, please provide your reasoning
Finance Denmark (formerly known as the Danish Bankers Association) welcomes the opportunity presented by the EBA to comment on the Consultation Paper on the draft RTS/ITS on the EBA Registry.In general, Finance Denmark supports the EBA’s conclusion that the technical requirements related to the development, operation and maintenance of the EBA Register should contain high level technical requirements regarding insertion of information, user access and the search of information.
The option that EBA proposes in the Consultation Paper will guarantee that the information is transmitted from the NCAs to the EBA a day after the information in the national registers is amended.
While we recognize the difficulties of choosing a technical solution that will suit both the EBA and the NCAs, we must stress that it is of utmost importance to have a registry that is both automated and updated in near real time, meaning without delay after the information in the national registers is amended.
Finance Denmark would therefore encourage the EBA to recommend all NCAs use the automated process in order to ensure updates are made not only with-out delay, but immediately.
PSD2 aims to support the continued development of an integrated internal market for safe electronic payments. This requires a high level of trust in the information contained in the registry. In our opinion this can only be achieved with information updated in real time.
The proposed time lag represents a risk to both the banks and ultimately the end customer and does not provide the necessary consumer protection in line with the spirit of PSD2.
The time lag is especially critical when it comes to revocation of the authorisation or registration of a payment institution/third party provider. Speed is essential, and this calls for an automated and real time process.
Finally the emergence and rapid development of instant payments will only intensify the demand for real time data, i.e. to minimize the potential loses in case of fraudulent transactions.
Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed criteria and functionalities related to the search of information in the EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.
Finance Denmark agrees with the proposed search criteria’s and the possibility of allowing different combinations of the search criteria for more refined search results.We strongly support the suggestion made by some NCAs that the EBA Register should be “machine readable”, which would allow for an automated and much more sufficient process when extracting information from the registry, especially when the RTS on SCA and CSC enters into force.
In our opinion the benefits from a “machine readable” functionality can not only be measured as stated by the EBA paragraph 21 of the CP: “the marginal added value will be less than the cost endured the EBA”. In our opinion it would mean significant costs for both bank and non-bank payment service providers, if the EBA Register is not machine readable.
In the case that it proves impossible for the EBA to take on board the above mentioned concerns, we would advocate an automated download function of the full list.
As stated in our comment to Q1 an automated and real time registry is essential to achieve the goals of PSD2, to ensure consumer protection and the trust and use of electronic payment services.
Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed non-functional requirements related to the operation of the EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.
The proposed non-functional requirements are set at a very high level. We would welcome more detail to ensure the availability and performance of the registry.Further to our comments to Q1 and Q2 we would welcome that the key functional requirements for the registry is to be available 24/7 and updated in real-time. Otherwise there is a risk that the registry might become redundant.
Question 4: Do you agree with the way how the EBA proposes to fulfil the mandate in terms of the natural and legal persons that will need to be included in the future EBA Register? If not, please provide your reasoning.
We generally agree with the proposed natural and legal persons that are to be included in the registry.While we recognize that the EBA is limited by its mandate in article 15 of PSD2 (referring to article 14), we support a comprehensive registry of all payment service providers offering account information services or payment initiation services.
We would therefor encourage the EBA to also incorporate credit institutions offering these services into the EBA Register. The EBA should at least make it possible on a voluntary basis for credit institutions to be listed on the register.
A comprehensive registry would ensure equality of treatment of all payment service providers and help fulfill the aim of PSD2 of creating an efficient competitive European market for payment services.