When it comes to recurring transactions and future-dated payments, would an implementation of the PSD2-interface that requires that the TPPs store the payment details until due date, and not until due date are they allowed to send the transactions to the ASPSP for execution, satisfy the requirements in Opinion on the implementation of the RTS on SCA and SCA (EBA-Op-2018-04) of June 13, 2018' paragraph 29, in cases where the ASPSP itself offers future-dated payments and recurring transactions in their mobile/web-bank application?

If the answer to the preceding question is yes, what then is the meaning of the statement '… a PISP has the right to initiate the same transactions that the ASPSP offers to its own PSUs, such as … recurring transactions, … and future-dated payments'?

Opinion on the implementation of the RTS on SCA and SCA (EBA-Op-2018-04) of June 13, 2018 paragraph 29 says:

"Given that PSD2 does not limit the types of payment transactions a PISP is allowed to offer, and given the provisions in Articles 4(15) and 66(1) of PSD2 in particular, the EBA would like to clarify that a PISP has the right to initiate the same transactions that the ASPSP offers to its own PSUs, such as instant payments, batch payments, international payments, recurring transactions, payments set by national schemes and future-dated payments."

With a few ASPSPs, future-dated payments and recurring transactions is implemented in such a way that the TPPs have to store the payment details until due date, and not until due date are they allowed to submit the payments to the ASPSP.

Arguments are brought forward that the provisions in paragraph 29 are being satisfied inasmuch as "... the bank enables the TPPs to offer its customers the same payment methods that an ASPSP offers directly to its PSUs, and that the bank is not required to offer TPPs the use of other technical solutions, in this case the mobile/web-bank application, which implements the delayed starting of a payment".

On the other hand, it is argued that if there is no functionality that would allow a TPP to send transactions with future dates to the ASPSP the way the PSU is able to do in the ASPSPs direct interface, there seems to be no substance in the statement "… a PISP has the right to initiate the same transactions that the ASPSP offers to its own PSUs, such as … recurring transactions, … and future-dated payments". 

According to Article 66(1) of the Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2), a payer has the right to make use of a payment initiation service provider (PISP) to obtain payment initiation services, if the payer’s payment account is accessible online.

Paragraph 29 of the EBA Opinion on the implementation of the RTS on SCA and CSC (EBA-Op-2018-04) clarified that a PISP has the right to initiate the same transactions that the account servicing payment service provider (ASPSP) offers to its own payment service users (PSUs), such as instant payments, batch payments, international payments, recurring transactions, payments set by national schemes and future-dated payments.

This means that, if an ASPSP offers its PSUs the possibility to initiate recurring transactions and future-dated payments in the ASPSP’s direct customer interface, it should also allow PSUs to initiate such type of payments via a PISP. In the scenario described by the submitter where the ASPSP only allows PISPs submit the payment details on the due date and not before, it cannot be considered that the ASPSP allows PISPs to initiate recurring transactions and future-dated payments and therefore this would not be in line with the PSD2 and the Delegated Regulation if the ASPSP offers its PSUs the possibility to initiate recurring transactions and future-dated payments in its direct customer interface.