Currence iDEAL B.V.

We believe that both scenarios to a certain extent introduce legal uncertainty for both regulators and PSPs (as users of the Guidelines), because they both anticipate on outcomes on important issues which are still under debate. We therefore believe that a simple choice between these two scenarios will lead to confusion and extra (rework)cost for the users due to legal uncertainty on what to precisely comply with, with regard to the key outstanding issues.

To avoid legal uncertainty and the resulting potential operational effort and cost we suggest to reformulate the consultation questions as follows:
Option (a) which is the two-step approach under the condition that the second step is implemented provided that legal clarity is established on the critical issues (currently under debate) in the definitive PSD2 Directive text (currently expected short before 1 Augustus 2015) with sufficient time (at least one year) to adopt and implement the stronger PSD2 requirements from this date on; or

Option (b) which is the one-step approach under the condition that it is based on the definitive and final text of the PSD2 with an appropriate time frame (at least one year) starting from the effective date of adoption of the PSD2.

Currence iDEAL B.V. prefers the reformulated option (a) the two-step approach because it simultaneously serve both sufficient legal certainty and operational security in the short term. This option enables better planning and management of the compliance effort and the related investments by users, given the EBA timelines.
Currence iDEAL B.V.