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

Testing eIDAS certificates before 14 September 2019

How can Third Party Providers (TPPs) and Account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) test their interfaces using PSD2 eIDAS-certificates during the testing period prior to September 2019 as it is only mandatory to use PSD2 eIDAS certificates from September 2019 onwards?

  • 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_4138
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/06/2019

Application of Transaction Risk Analysis (TRA) exemption – Real time risk analysis / monitoring

Is it acceptable if a payment service provider (PSP) looking to apply the TRA exemption makes a best effort using the information available to them to identify that none of the six individual factors mentioned in Article 18(2)(c) of the Commission Delegated Regulation 2018/389 are applicable, but does not have to actually identify non-applicability of all of these factors to be able to use the TRA exemption? 

  • 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_4127
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/06/2019

Exemption for secure corporate payment processes and protocols

May lodged and virtual cards benefit from the exemption for secure corporate payment processes and protocols under Article 17 RTS?

  • 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_4060
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/06/2019

Transaction Risk Analysis (TRA) exemption – Frequency of recalculation of fraud rate

Should the fraud rate, in accordance with Article 19 of the RTS, be recalculated every day using the trailing 90 days of data, or should it be recalculated once every 90 days (using the trailing 90 days of data)? If the fraud rate should be recalculated once every 90 days (using the trailing 90 days of data), can the calculation periods be aligned with calendar quarters? (e.g. the fraud rate for use during Q1 2020 (01-Jan-20 to 31-Mar-20) would be based on fraud data for Q4 2019 (01-Oct-19 to 31-Dec-19).

  • 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_4045
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 07/06/2019

Certfication in relation to a Technical Service Provider (TSP)

When performing the role of a Technical Service Provider (TSP) is the TSP required to update the certificate received from the Third Party Payment Service Providers (TPP) (to demonstrate our involvement) to enable the Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) to authorise the certificate and provide the appropriate requested data back through to the TPP and establish the session? Is this same certificate required for every type of transaction request and must it be real time checked by the ASPSP and how does this impact our role as a TSP?Also, by introducing a TSP between a TPP and an ASPSP is the concept of private keys and the transport layer broken, due to the introduction of a TSP between the TPP and the ASPSP? Finally, are there limits to the number of roles involved in the chain in terms of the certification or do we just need to be able to demonstrate the link back to the point of origin for the certificate (the TPP)?

  • 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_4375
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/05/2019

Authentication code

Is it allowed to use the (authenticated) session that a user has (after logging in (with or without SCA)) as 1 of the authentication factor when performing SCA for a payment transaction?For example: A customer logs in with its username & password (knowledge) + SMS One Time Password (possession). Once in his online banking environment he looks at his statements. Within that same session (that ends after 5 minutes inactivity) he makes a payment.The question is if for authenticating the payment it is required to perform SCA again or if the authenticated session (based on the previous authentication) and a second SMS One Time Password (possession) that dynamically links the payment would suffice.

  • 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_4141
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 24/05/2019

Information to be provided / made available by ASPSP to payment initiation service provider (PISP)

In the context of PIS:(a) shall the ASPSP, upon initiation of the payment session, provide or make available to the PISP the IBANs/account numbers for all payment accounts from which the user can transfer funds, and the associated currencies; and(b) shall the ASPSP, in each communication session, provide or make available to the PISP/AISP the name of the payment service user that is accessing the accounts.

  • 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_4188
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 10/05/2019

Application of the Low Value Transaction Limits

Should the limits according the Article 16 RTS be applied to the account itself (account holder and authorized persons together) or should they be applied to the account holder (owner) and each authorized person (i.e. proxy of account holder) separately? Subsequently should the limits be applied to all remote payment transactions together or should e.g. card transactions and credit transfers be counted separately. Also should the limit be applied to all cards belonging to one person together or should the limit be applied to each card separately?

  • 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_4429
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Wide usage portability between Member States

Could three months’ data, showing wide usage of the dedicated interface, produced in one Member State by a regulated entity (ASPSP) belonging to an ASPSP Group, be used as evidence to support the ‘widely used’ condition in a further Member State for a separate regulated entity (ASPSP) belonging to the same ASPSP Group, on the condition that both entities employ the same dedicated interface?

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: EBA/GL/2018/07 - Guidelines on the exemption from the contingency mechanism under Regulation (EU) 2018/389
  • ID: 2019_4638
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Applicability of Article 34 (eIDAS certificates) prior to application date of Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Is the use of eIDAS certificates mandatory for accessing payment accounts via dedicated interfaces (APIs) already prior to the application date of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389, i.e. 14 September 2019?

  • 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_4630
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Content of eIDAS certificates if agents or outsource providers are involved

Who shall be the Subject Distinguished Name (DN) in the situation described in EBA Opinion on eIDAS (EBA-Op-2018-7) item 21? Does information on agents or outsource providers has to show up in the certificates? 

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2019_4507
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Passporting and eIDAS certificates

Do account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) have to check that third party providers (TPPs) are authorised to operate in their Member State via freedom to deliver services passporting? If so, how shall this be done?

  • 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_4432
  • Topic: Passporting
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 26/04/2019

Fraud rate calculation for TRA exemption – country dimension

Could – or should – the fraud rate for the TRA exemption be calculated per member state where a PSP provides payment services (one legal entity with branches in different countries), or should the fraud rate be aggregated as one for the whole legal entity?

  • 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_4439
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Fall back exemption

Article 33, § 6 of the RTS for strong customer authentication and common and secure open standards of communication (the “RTS”) provides that “Competent authorities, after consulting EBA to ensure a consistent application of the following conditions, shall exempt the account servicing payment service providers that have opted for a dedicated interface from the obligation to set up the contingency mechanism […]” (the “fall back exemption”). a) Which authority - the home authority or the host authority ?- is the compentent authority under article 33, § 6 of the RTS, when the “fall back exemption request” concerns the dedicated interface used in a Member state where a branch of the ASPSP is located? b) Does the answer differ if the same dedicated interface is used in the home member state and in the host member state where a branch is located?

  • 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_4163
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 12/04/2019

Identification and access for testing purposes of entities that are not authorised third party providers (TPPs)

How would account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) identify entities that have applied for authorisation as a TPP?Should ASPSPs offer access to their testing facility to entities that are not (i) authorised payment service providers or (ii) entities that have applied for authorisation as a TPP (e.g. technical service providers)? If the answer is ‘yes’, should ASPSPs offer the same level of service to the referred entities?

  • 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_4609
  • Topic: Other topics
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 29/03/2019

ASPSP is denied the waiver to the fall-back by an NCA

If an Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP) is denied the waiver to the fall-back by a National Competent Authority (NCA) (i.e. at 13 September 2019), will the ASPSP still have 2 months to build the fall-back?

  • 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_4140
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 22/03/2019

Application of the exemption related to a trusted beneficiary

Has the exemption related to a trusted beneficiary to be applied on an account basis or rather to a list of accounts included in an online banking agreement ? Whose list has to be considered in case of a power of attorney where the initiator is not the account owner ? What happens in case of a shared account where each one holds his own trusted beneficiary lists ?

  • 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_4360
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 08/03/2019

Applicability of SCA to ‘card payments initiated by the payee only’

Are card payments that are initiated by the payee only on the basis of (1) an initial mandate by the payer authorizing the payee to initiate the periodic payments and (2) a pre-existing agreement between the payer and the payee for the provision of products or services, subject to the RTS SCA requirements?

  • 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_4031
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/03/2019

Subsequent instances of a recurring card payment transaction, other than the first, initial one, are transactions initiated by the payee only. This is also the case for card instalment transactions.

Are the subsequent instance of card payment recurring transactions (other than the first, initial one) and of instalment transactions (again, subsequent to the initial one) transactions initiated by the payee only?

  • 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_4404
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/03/2019

Payee-initiated transactions with irregular period or variable amount

Please clarify whether standing agreements between a customer and a merchant resulting in subsequent billing (irregular or otherwise) to be payee-initiated transactions, and as such excluded from the SCA requirement.

  • Legal act: Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
  • COM Delegated or Implementing Acts/RTS/ITS/GLs: Not applicable
  • ID: 2018_4131
  • Topic: Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
  • Date of submission:
  • Published as final Q&A: 01/03/2019