Submission #11

Primary tabs

View(active tab)

SAS NUMERICOMPTA

Question 1: Do you consider the objectives of the Guidelines as identified by the EBA to be plausible and complete? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We consider that the objectives of the guidelines as identified by the EBA are plausible and complete.

Question 2: Do you agree with the options the EBA has chosen regarding the identification of payment services by the applicant; the way information is to be submitted to the competent authority; the four-part structure of the Guidelines, and the inclusion of authorisation for electronic money institutions? If not, please provide your reasoning.

We agree that the options chosen by the EBA are the preferred ones.
Both the detailed description of the services the applicant intend to provide, and the fact that there is a complete list of information items to provide will enable CAs to process the application faster and more reliably.
The three-part structure of the guidelines will help applicants provide more focused information, in turn helping the CAs process the application.

Question 3: Do you consider it helpful how the EBA has incorporated proportionality measures in the Guidelines in line with PSD2? If not, please explain your reasoning and propose alternative approaches.

The proportionality measures incorporated in the guidelines are needed in order to adapt the measures, processes and solutions to the scale of the applicant’s activity.
We think that they should be more explicitly detailed, as there is a lot of room for interpretation in the way they are integrated in the guidelines.
Amongst the objectives of the guidelines is the fact that they should provide a level playing field, guaranteeing that all applicants should be treated the same regardless of the CA to which they apply, and we feel that to fulfill this goal, the proportionality measures should be more explicit.

Question 4: Do you agree with the Guidelines on information required from applicants for the authorisation as payment institutions for the provision of services 1-8 of Annex I of PSD2, as set out in chapter 4.1? If not, please provide your reasoning. Not applicable to our case.

Question 5: Do you agree with the Guidelines on information required from applicants for registration for the provision of only service 8 of Annex I PSD2 (account information services), as set out in chapter 4.2? If not, please provide your reasoning.

The sheer amount of information items the applicant needs to provide in its application will deter small, innovative new entrants, which seems to be in direct opposition to the EBA’s mission statement.
The proportionality measures could be a good way to compensate for this issue, but the way they are laid out is prone to open interpretation, thus raising the uncertainty and lowering the transparency for the applicants.
These measures should be made explicit and detailed.

Question 6: Do you agree with the Guidelines on information requirements for applicants for authorisation as electronic money institutions, as set out in chapter 4.3? If not, please provide your reasoning. Not applicable to our case.

Question 7: Do you consider the Guidelines regarding the assessment of completeness of the application, as set out in chapter 4.4 to be helpful? If not, please provide your reasoning.

In our view, this guideline should also include the obligations of the CA regarding the evaluation process. Article 12 of PSD2 explicitly states that CA should grant or refuse the authorization within 3 month of receiving all information required for the decision, as well as the fact that refusal have to be motivated.
As the guidelines are legally binding, they should include both these obligations.

Name of organisation SAS NUMERICOMPTA