Search for Q&As

Enquirers can use various factors to search for a Q&A:

  • These include searching by the Q&A ID; legal reference, date submitted, technical standard / guideline, or by keyword if known.
  • Searches can be extended to more than one legal act, topic, technical standard or guidelines by making multiple selections (i.e. pressing 'Ctrl' on your keyboard, and selecting the relevant ones from the drop-down lists by left mouse-click).

Disclaimer:

Q&As refer to the provisions in force on the day of their publication. The EBA does not systematically review published Q&As following the amendment of legislative acts. Users of the Q&A tool should therefore check the date of publication of the Q&A and whether the provisions referred to in the answer remain the same.

Please note that the Q&As related to the supervisory benchmarking exercises have been moved to the dedicated handbook page. You can submit Q&As on this topic here.

Final Q&As Q&As under review Rejected Q&As Archived Q&As All Q&As

List of Q&A's

Surcharging

Is a ‘foreign exchange margin’ or 'currency conversion fee'  different from a ‘surcharge’ and do different foreign exchange margins above the ECB mid-market rate not constitute a surcharge?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4576
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Immediate Refund by the Payment Service Provider of unauthorised SEPA Direct Debit transactions after 8 weeks.

Our question is related to ‘unauthorised’ transactions, and as from when it is qualified as unauthorised? Is this as soon as any payment service user claims that the transaction is unauthorised?   -Or is this as soon as the payment service provider analysed if the transaction is really unauthorised?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4573
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

Potential inconsistency on the application of Strong Customer Authentication exemptions to AISPs

Shall Account Servicing Payment Service Providers (ASPSPs) always grant Account Information Service Provider (AISPs) to be exempted from Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) according to rules defined in Article 10 of the RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389), or is the final decision to apply such exemption always up to the ASPSP?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2019_4450
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022

90 Day Access via Direct Access

Should any solution which involves direct access, whether as a strategic solution to PSD2, or in relation to the obligation to provide a fallback interface, ensure that Account Information Service Providers (AISPs) can access the interface in the same manner as the dedicated interface, specifically on an ongoing basis and for a maximum of 90 days once the customer has provided consent and authenticated using strong customer authentication (SCA)?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Regulation (EU) 2018/389 - RTS on strong customer authentication and secure communication
  • ID: 2018_4339
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as Rejected Q&A: 11/02/2022