Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Division Bank and Insurance

If an error occurs during the authorization of a payment order by means of a PISP (payment initiation service provider), the missing authorization is initially charged to the ASPSP (account servicing payment service provider). The latter must reimburse the affected amount to the account of the customer and regress itself at the PISP (see Art 73 (2) PSD 2). It is, therefore, an urgent interest of the ASPSP to ensure that the PISP has sufficient insurance or other collateral to cover such claims. This is all the more so since the ASPSP is unable to choose the PISP, which accesses the accounts of the ASPSP, and must not prevent their access.

The Draft Guidelines are obviously assuming that a failure at authorization by the PISP will never affect all PISP-triggered payments. But this might well regularly be. However, it can by no means be excluded that the total sum of the actual damages exceeds the insurance sum. This is especially the case when the number of transactions is above the forecasts for a newly founded PISP and a widespread error occurs. Therefore we are of the opinion that the imposed insurance sum of PISPs should be adjusted continuously to the transaction volume and not just once a year.

The examples given in the document reach an insurance coverage of around 30% to 50% of the annual transaction volume. We believe it would be useful to provide an absolute lower limit (eg 50% of the transaction volume). This would also compensate for the fact that no viable statement can be derived for the future from the figures of previous complaints that can be included in the calculation according to the formula.
[Other "]"
[Other"]"
Dr. Franz Rudorfer
A