Question no 1:
Do art. 30(1), art. 31 and art. 33 of the Commision Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 of 27 November 2017 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards for strong customer authentication and common and secure open standards of communication (”RTS”) should be interpreted in that manner, that in scenario, where account servicing payment service provider (”ASPSP”) has introduced a so-called dedicated interface within a meaning of art. 31 RTS, which meets requirements provided for in art. 32 and 33 RTS, than ASPSP has a right and it is up to ASPSP’s sole discretion, whether, for purposes of communication with account information service providers (”AISPs”), to:
make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS (i.e. dedicated interface and interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs); or
make available to AISPs only dedicated interface (without prejudice to, among others, contingency measures set forth in art. 33 RTS)?
Question no 2:
If answer to question no 1 is that in scenario of introduction by ASPSP of dedicated interface, ASPSP has a right and it is up to ASPSP’s sole discretion to make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS (i.e. dedicated interface and interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs), does this mean that AISPs, with observation of further requirements set forth in art. 30, art. 34 and art. 35 RTS, might communicate with this ASPSP, in parallel, throughout both access interfaces?
Question no 3:
If answer to question no 1 is that in scenario of introduction by ASPSP of dedicated interface, ASPSP has no right and it is not up to ASPSP’s sole discretion to make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS, i.e. a contrario ASPSP is allowed to make available to AISPs only dedicated interface (without prejudice to, among others, contingency measures set forth in art. 33 RTS), does ASPSP is under obligement to engange necessary and proportional measures, including technical measures, for AISPs to communicate with ASPSP only via dedicated interface, i.e. with exclusion of interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs?
Question no 4:
If answer to question no 1 is that in scenario of introduction by ASPSP of dedicated interface, ASPSP has no right and it is not up to ASPSP’s sole discretion to make available to AISPs, in parallel, two access interfaces, as referred to in art. 31 RTS, i.e. a contrario ASPSP is allowed to make available to AISPs only dedicated interface (without prejudice to, among others, contingency measures as set forth in art. 33 RTS) but nevertheless ASPSP has not engange necessary and proportional measures, including technical measures, for AISPs to communicate with ASPSP only via dedicated interface, i.e. with exclusion of interface made available to the payment service users for the authentication and communication with their ASPSPs, does this fact in any measure reflects AISPs right to communicate with this ASPSP throughout both access interfaces, or whether AISPs should undertake any additional actions, and if yes, what kind of actions?
- 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
