Response to consultation on draft implementing technical standards for uniform reporting under the Single Euro Payments Area Regulation

1. Do you perceive that the reporting requirements adequately cater for the situation where the PSP has already reported the same data to the authorities?

We notice that some of the information to be reported go beyond the scope of Art. 15(3) of the Instant Payments Regulation (IPR) even if para. 11 of the EBA Consultation Paper clarifies that the reporting should refer to Art. 15(3) but also Art. 15(4) and Art. 15(2).

We also note that some information is already being communicated by PSPs to their national competent authorities under existing reporting obligations. This is particularly true for the reporting data about the volume and value of credit transfers and instant credit transfers. 

It is therefore critical that the reporting under the various applicable (local) laws and regulations is streamlined (as regards, for instance, the scope of application, or the definitions) to ensure data minimisation and to avoid duplication of reporting that would create excessive burden for the industry. 

For this purpose, and as a rule, it should be made explicit that national competent authorities cannot collect data that were already reported or required under the proposed ITS.

This however requires aligning the ITS with current reporting requirements such as the EBA Guidelines for fraud reporting under PSD2 as well as the Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59). The EBA should therefore clearly specify the reporting requirements including providing definitions and methodological guidance similar to that provided by the ECB in its payment statistics manual.

2. Do you consider the reporting requirements proposed in templates S 01.00 and S 02.00 to be suitable for carrying out a robust analysis and to strike an appropriate balance with the competing need to avoid excessive reporting burden for the industry?

We believe that the reporting requirements proposed in templates S 01.00 and S 02.00 guarantee an appropriate balance between the needs at the basis of this reporting and the competing necessity to avoid excessive reporting burden for the industry.

However, we have several comments and requests for clarification as regards the items in Annex I (reporting templates) and Annex II (instructions for PSPs):

Template/instructions S 01.00:

• It should be clarified which PSP is requested to report what item in this template to avoid duplication of reporting which would create an unnecessary and unjustified burden on PSPs, e.g. it seems that items 0010-0030, 0050-0070 and 0290-0400 should be reported by the payer’s PSP only. In this respect, there should be full alignment with the Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59). 
• The need for a full alignment with Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) also concerns key concepts [such] as when transactions should be counted (execution or value date) or payment status (should cancelled transactions, rejected transactions, or refunds or reversals be included?). 
• We assume that only credit transfers that are in scope of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 should be reported, i.e. payment transactions carried out between and within PSPs, and payment transactions processed and settled through large value payment systems are excluded. We suggest clarifying this. 
• Annex II, para. 7 clarifies that the “Template S 01.00 shall contain the number and value of credit transfers and instant credit transfers in euro for PSPs in euro Member States, and in national currency other than euro for non-euro Member States, unless stated otherwise in the template below”. We understand that the total number/value of credit transfers in template S 01.00 items 0010-0040 is credit transfers in the national currency (meaning Euro/non-Euro depending on the currency that is used in a specific country) and for items 0250-0280 it is credit transfers in Euro (for PSPs in a country where Euro is not the main currency). We would appreciate clarification whether this shall be interpreted as (cross-border) credit transfers and instant credit transfers in euro converted to a value in e.g. Danish krone using the DKK/EUR exchange-rate OR it is the number and value of (domestic) credit transfers and instant credit transfers in e.g. Danish krone. We suggest also clarifying how all the sub-items in this section should be reported considering the above distinction.
• We understand that the total number/value of credit transfers from payment accounts held by consumers and the total number/value of credit transfers from payment accounts held by PSUs other than consumers are a subset of the total number/value of credit transfers (i.e., item 0090/0110 + item 0130/0150 = item 0010/0030). If this is the case, we suggest making this clear. Similarly, we understand that the number/value of domestic credit transfers and cross-border credit transfers should sum to the total (e.g., item 0010 = 0170 + 0210). If this is the case, we suggest making this clear.
• 0090 – 0160: it is not entirely clear from Annex II what “consumers” and “PSUs other than consumers” refer to. We would welcome clarification from the EBA and suggest to explicitly refer to the definition under PSD2.
• Items 0170, 0210 and 0230: it is unclear why, in Annex II, reference is made to credit transfer “initiated by a payer or by a payee”. We suggest deleting it. Row 0170 should therefore read “Total number of domestic credit transfers - Total number of credit transfers, where the payer’s PSP and the payee’s PSP are located in the same Member State”. Similarly, “initiated by a payer or by a payee” should be deleted in row 0210 and 0230. If the EBA decides that this information is still required, we suggest clarifying to what kind of credit transfer initiated by the payee the ITS refers.
• Item 0250 and 0270: this item should refer to transactions in Euro, as it is correctly stated in the title of the item, regardless of the currency of the payment account. The reference in Annex II is not correct and should be modified as follows: “0250: Total number of credit transfers in Euro - Total number of credit transfers in Euro. Data to be provided only where a PSP is located in a non-euro Member State”. Similarly, “0270: Total value of credit transfers in Euro - Total value of credit transfers in Euro , expressed in Euro. Data to be provided only where a PSP is located in a non-euro Member State”. 
• Items 0290 – 0400: there should be full alignment with Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59). In this Regulation, data reported under ‘initiated on a single payment basis’ are further broken down by ‘ATM or other PSP terminal’, ‘mobile payment solution’ and ‘online banking-based credit transfers’. ‘ATM or other PSP terminal’ only includes non-remotely initiated credit transfers while ‘mobile payment solution’ and ‘online banking-based credit transfers’ only include remotely initiated credit transfers. Credit transfers initiated in a file/batch are instead reported separately. Otherwise, while the distinction between different initiation methods seems useful, there should be further clarification on the different categories of payment initiation channels (i.e. an exhaustive list and a clear description of the channels is needed, the difference between online banking and mobile banking should be clarified, as well as where ATM transactions should be included). Clarification is also sought on whether only the payer’s PSP has to report (sent credit transfers) or the payee’s PSP also, or when it should be one or the other.
• Furthermore, we suggest deleting the examples in item 0330 of template S 01.00 and 0150 of template S 02.00 in Annex II as the scope of this reporting is credit transfer only; for instance, it is unclear why a reference to card payments and e-money transactions is made.
• Items 0410 up to 0480: as analogue ‘share’ (SHA) is the only charging principle in the EEA (i.e. each user pays his/her PSP and any other option where the charges are borne by the originator or the beneficiary only are not allowed), we suggest removing these items from the reporting obligation. 

Template/instructions S 02.00:

• Same general comments reported under S 01.00, referred to the credit transfers in the scope of the reporting, apply (1^st to 4^th bullet points). In particular, it should be clarified that the scope of this template includes only the level of charges applied to PSUs and that such charges should be reported by the PSPs both in their role as payer’s PSP (charges applied to the payers) and payee’s PSP (charges applied to the payees).
• Item 0030-0060: this is not covered by the IPR and would lead to unnecessary and unjustified burdens for PSPs. 
• Items 0070 – 0100: price differentiation in the EU/EEA is not permitted, therefore these items shall not be required.
• Items 0070 and 0090: it is unclear why, in Annex II, reference is made to credit transfer “initiated by a payer or by a payee”. We suggest deleting it. Row 0070 should therefore read “Total value of charges for domestic credit transfers - Total value of charges for credit transfers, where the payer’s PSP and the payee’s PSP are located in the same Member State, expressed in national currency. Similarly, “initiated by a payer or by a payee” should be deleted in row 0090. If the EBA decides that this information is still required, we suggest clarifying to what kind of credit transfer initiated by the payee the ITS refers.      
• Items 0190 – 0220: the data requested do not seem appropriate for IPR. Please refer to the comment above related to items 0410 - 0480 in template S 01.00. We therefore suggest deleting the relevant information.

3. Do you consider the reporting requirements proposed in templates S 03.00 to be suitable for carrying out a robust analysis and to strike an appropriate balance with the competing need to avoid excessive reporting burden for the industry?

We believe that the reporting requirements proposed in template S 03.00 guarantee an appropriate balance between the needs at the basis of this reporting and the competing necessity to avoid excessive reporting burden for the industry.

However, we have some comments and requests for clarification as regards the items in Annex I (reporting templates) and in Annex II (Instructions for PSPs):

• It should be specified which kind of charges/fees should be included in 0020 (charges for the maintenance of payment accounts) and 0030 (total charges for a payment account). 
• We understand that the total value of charges under items 0020 and 0030 is always the sum of the overall fees reported in the FID/SOF for the payment accounts that are in the scope of the reporting. If this is the case, we suggest clarifying it.

4. Do you consider that the reporting requirements on the charges for payment accounts and credit transfers will allow for a robust analysis of charges for such individual financial services where they are provided as part of a package of services? How could robustness be improved to strike the right balance between collecting relevant data and not overburdening the PSPs?

The same comments provided for Questions 1, 2 and 3 apply here as well.

5. Do you agree that, in light of the aims of the underlying regulation, there is a need for template S 04.00 to collect data on the number of rejected transactions on the side of the payer’s and payee’s PSP prior to the application of the IPR amendments to SEPA Regulation, and rejected transactions on the side of the payer’s PSP, and frozen funds on the side of the payee’s PSP, after the application of the IPR amendments to SEPA Regulation?

The Consultation Paper clarifies that: 

• The “number of rejected or frozen transactions” pertains only to the provision as per Art. 5d (1), i.e., to the systematic and immediate verification of whether any of the PSUs are persons or entities subject to targeted financial restrictive measures; 
• Rejected transactions based on other types of restrictive measures according to Art. 5d (2) are not to be included in this report.

There is then an essential point that should be clarified as it affects not only the IP, but it is a matter of the outmost importance that may involve all the payments related to sanctioned persons.

In particular, according to what is stated above and according to the specific wording of the question, it seems that on the side of the payee’s PSP, the PSPs who already provide instant payments will have to report the number of rejected transactions before the adoption of the IPR (from 26 October 2022 up to 8 January 2025) and the number of frozen transactions after the entry into force of the new sanctions screening requirements (as of 9 January 2025). We would welcome clarification on whether our understanding is correct.

Conversely, it should be explained if the rejection of instant credit transfers is also possible in cases where the payee is subject to restrictive measures adopted by the EU in accordance with Art. 215 TFEU. In other words, clarification should be provided on how the payee’s PSP must behave when receiving an incoming instant payment and how – consequently - rejections and frozen funds should be reported (before and after the entry into force of the IPR sanctions screening measures).

Instead, on the side of the payer’s PSP, we highlight that such cases of rejections never occur, as, for a payer subject to restrictive measures adopted by the EU in accordance with Art. 215 TFEU, the PSP is prohibited from executing the transaction (instead of the transaction being rejected). This is also true in the case of transaction-based sanctions screening verifications before the adoption of the IPR. Therefore, we suggest deleting items from 0040 to 0060.

Further, comparing the absolute number of rejected transactions in two different years may not be indicative of the application of EU-wide targeted financial restrictive measures. The number of rejected transactions may be high or low, based on the number of targeted persons or on the number of transactions initiated by or directed at these persons. Other factors may play a role as well, e.g., a high number of non-EU issued sanctions that impact the operations of a PSP that has a strong nexus with the sanction issuing country (not only because of, e.g., presence, but also because of the fact of servicing business related to such country, dependency of access to such country’s clearing).

In addition, we remark that the request to report historical information would require a significant effort for the PSPs in order to retrieve such information.

Regarding pre-IPR transaction rejections, it may be useful to consider that in some countries - based on local convention - domestic transactions were not screened, as all PSPs were subject to the same supranational and national sanctions laws and regulations. 

6. Are the instructions and templates in Annex I and II clear to you or do any of the terms therein require to be defined further?

Comments in response to Question 5 apply here as well. 

As a rule, the definitions should be aligned with those in the SEPA Regulation and, when missing, they should point to other relevant payments legislation, i.e. PSD2 or Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59). 

7. Do you perceive the reporting requirements to be proportionate? Is there information contained in the templates that is overly burdensome to report?

Please see answer to Question 1 and Question 5. 

Reporting under the numerous relevant laws and regulations has grown dramatically. The purpose is sometimes not clear and the amount or the sort of data required is sometimes not proportionate or relevant for the purpose. In general, the requirements seem to be too granular in many items, exceeding the requirements of the regulation and leading to disproportionate costs for implementation and operation. Retrospective data for 2022, 2023 and 2024 are also very difficult to collect. 

8. Do you have any other comments on the reporting requirements proposed in this CP?

First, we would like to highlight that we are extremely concerned by the timetable of the ITS. If the EBA intends to submit the final draft to the Commission by the end of the year, banks really do not have enough time to implement the necessary changes to their systems for starting the reporting on 9 April 2025, hence we propose to postpone the start of the reporting obligations. 

Having said that, although it is positive that the templates/instructions are drafted under the principle that the reporting burden on the PSPs should be limited as much as possible, some clarifications are needed, especially on the scope of reporting, the terminology that is used in the consultation paper, and the instructions related to the information that will have to be reported to the competent authorities. 

As you can read from our answers to the above questions, we have received numerous questions from our communities that show that the clarifications on the scope of reporting as well as a clear definition of the terms are essential to assess properly the impacts and burden of the draft templates on the PSPs and the procedure for the reporting. 

We also have questions as regards the first report due by 9 April 2025 which will cover three years for which PSPs will report separately, in three returns. What to do if some data from these periods no longer exists, which cannot be excluded? Also, how should the charges be calculated if they relate to a period of one year, six months, or a quarter? Should a pro rata be applied?

Finally, in the case of groupings, does the reporting need to be performed by each legal entity, or can it be executed by the holding company?

Name of the organization