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?
Member banks of the Czech Banking Association found out that some of the requested data is already reported by the banks to Czech National Bank under existing reporting obligations – mainly data about the volume and value of credit transfers and instant credit transfers.
We are of the opinion that reporting obligations should be limited just to the purpose specified in the Regulation (EU) No 2024/886 (furthermore as “IPR”) and only if the data is not collected by another regulatory requirement.
We would like to clarify our observation: is the burden of reporting requested data laid down on banks located outside Eurozone larger than on banks located within Eurozone? Is there any reason for that?
Even though it is not stated in the IPR, we read from the proposed templates S 01.00 and S 02.00 that while banks located within Eurozone should report on (instant) credit transfers denominated in EUR only, the banks located outside Eurozone should report not only on (instant) credit transfers denominated in EUR, but in addition also on (instant) credit transfers denominated in local currency. Is that right?
Please, could you specify the requested data based on where the reporting bank is located more precisely?
We do not support the idea the banks located outside the Eurozone should bear more reporting obligations than the banks located within Eurozone as the data on (instant) credit transfers denominated in the local currency are not covered by the IPR. This request would not set level playing field among banks within the EU.
In addition, we identified many unclear requirements.
S 01.00 - There is now way how to distinguish a way in which incoming payments were initiated (electronic or mobile payments, paper-based).
Which data should be really reported? Only the data on outgoing (instant) credit transfers? There are remarks about initiation of the (instant) credit transfer by a payee as well – see in
template S 01.00 rows 0170, 0210 and 0230 and in template S 02.00 rows 0070 and 0090 – therefore the request and obligation are not fully clear.
What is the geographical scope for (instant) credit transfers? Should be reported (instant) credit transfers executed within European Union, or European Economic Area, or within SEPA area, or worldwide? Should be reported inhouse (instant) credit transfers as well?
Regarding the reported data on (instant) credit transfers, we are not sure whether we should be reporting only on outgoing one-off credit transfers (initiated by various channels - paper-based, by phone, by mobile and internet banking regardless they are initiated by multiple authorization or by import in batches, or by third party via PIS (Payment Initiation Service as described in the PSD2) or even outgoing credit transfers executed from standing order, automated credit transfers as stated in PAD which distinguishes between definition of credit transfer and standing order. Could you please confirm that we should not report on collections or direct debits executed on payment account?
If we should report on outgoing (instant) credit transfers based on standing orders, we suppose we should report volumes, values and charges just for their execution, not for set up, change, delete of the prescription of these standing orders.
May we expect that instant credit transfers are supposed to be really credit transfers executed in real-time in couple of seconds, i.e. instant credit transfers are not supposed to be credit transfers executed with value date D+0 (priority/urgent payments).
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?
templates S 01.00 and 02.00 seems to be very complex and it will be quite complicated for our members to provide them.
Additionally to some general questions mentioned above, there are another more specific questions which were raised by our members, and we will appreciate their clarification.
Template S 01.00, rows 0030 and 0040 – if banks located outside Eurozone should report on (instant) credit transfer denominated in EUR, should be the value reported in EUR or in the local currency of the country in which the reporting bank is located?
Template S 01.00, rows 0050, 0060, 0070 and 0080 – it would be difficult to report the volume and value of (instant) credit transfers which are free of charge – it is a case of payment
accounts, which allow for a limited number of payment transactions, price of which is included in the price of payment account maintenance or on payment accounts, to which client may add on so-called transaction package (i.e. limited number of payment transaction for some extra fee).
Included in the calculation of the number of these payment transactions are not only outgoing one-off (instant) credit transfers, but also outgoing credit transfers based on standing orders,
automated transfers, as well as on incoming credit transfers, and collections and direct debits (i.e. both incoming and outgoing).
Thus, if client executes within a month more payment transactions than agreed limited number of payment transactions, the bank is not able to distinguish which (instant) credit transfers were free of charge, or if any.
As the requested reported data should cover not only (instant) credit transfers for consumers, but for all clients, another trouble with reporting free of charge outgoing (instant) credit transfers may occur once the bank and its client agreed on individual pricing. The result / problem with identifying, which outgoing (instant) credit transfers are free of charge and which would not be the same as described above.
The same as described for the impossible identification of volume of free of charge outgoing (instant) credit transfers is valid for impossible identification of volume of free of charge outgoing (instant) credit transfers.
Template S 01.00, rows 0250, 0260, 0270, 0280 – there is a different description in the headline and in the detailed description. Once based on the headline, we should report on outgoing (instant) credit transfers denominated in EUR, but based on the detailed description we suppose we should report on outgoing (instant) credit transfers executed on payment accounts denominated in EUR (only).
The uncertainty persists for banks located outside Eurozone: which outgoing (instant) credit transfers should be reported? One possible reading of the reporting requirements is that the banks located outside the Eurozone should report on outgoing (instant) credit transfers denominated in the local currency, but only in cases when the payment account used will be denominated in EUR.
Template S 01.00, rows 0270, 0280 – if banks located outside Eurozone should report on outgoing (instant) credit transfers denominated in the local currency on payment account denominated in EUR, then based on the description, such value should be reported in EUR, not in the local currency (as it is the case in the vast majority of the requested data about value of outgoing) instant credit transfers).
Template S 02.00 – answering the above-mentioned questions would help to explain this part as well, therefore we would not repeat them.
Furthermore, we would like to know, whether and where we should report on charges for so-called transaction packages? Beside transaction packages, agreed mainly with corporate clients, some tariff pricing (lump sum) may be agreed individually. It may contain not only different payment transactions, but also other different payment and banking services. The same trouble with reporting of charges persists here as well.
Template S 02.00, rows 0010, 0020, 0030, 0040, 0050, 0060, 0070, 0080, 0090, 0100 – in case of transaction packages and individual pricing the banks have no chance to recognize and
distinguish, which charge was applied to instant credit transfer and which to credit transfer as they charge it not continuously but at the end of the month, i.e. the banks are not scanning which (instant) credit transfer was the first one, the second, third etc., as these are counted together and agreed rules are applied – for the agreed number of payment transactions is applied this formula / charge, for another number of payment transactions is applied another formula / charge.
Template S 02.00, rows 0110, 0120 – text in the headline does not correspond to the detail description of the text as mentioned above for template S 01.00, rows 0250, 0260, 0270, 0280.
Template S 02.00, rows 0130, 0140, 0150, 0160 – regarding the charges some banks may not differentiate between the initiation channel of (instant) credit transfers as they deem it to be initiated electronically as a whole.
Template S 02.00, rows 0150, 0160 – we suppose banks should report on cashless outgoing (instant) credit transfers, not about card-base (instant) credit transfers.
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?
As we described above, the charges for account maintenance are just one part, mainly corporate clients may be charged for tariff pricing (lump sum), which content may be agreed individually, and some client (even consumers and small businesses) may be charged for so-called transaction packages.
Thus, the outcome analysis cannot be consistent neither for all clients within one bank, nor for all the banks within the Member State, nor for all banks in all Member States.
In general, each bank may interpret differently, which account types fall within the definition of “a payment account”.
Which account are to be incorporated into the reporting: alle or only those which were actively used for payments?
Template S 03.00, row 0010 – should be reported the volume of all payment accounts for all types of clients, or just for consumers? We hesitate, because the detailed description in the following rows speaks about Directive PAD, which is applicable to consumer only.
Template S 03.00, row 0030 – what types of charges for which payment services or which payment transactions should be reported as value of charges for a payment account? Directive PAD let Member States to determine the services, which are most commonly used in the given country. Therefore, the list of payment services / payment transactions is not fully harmonized between Member States.
For example, in the Czech Republic the common services under Directive PAD are defined as follows https://www.cnb.cz/export/sites/cnb/cs/legislativa/.galleries/vyhlasky/vyhlaska_74_2018.pdf
and
https://www.cnb.cz/export/sites/cnb/cs/legislativa/.galleries/vyhlasky/vyhlaska_74_2018_priloha.pdf
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?
We are afraid that differences of all common services and respective charges which are connected to them will cause impossibility to compare data coming from different Member States. Complexity of so-called transaction packages and tariff pricing (lump sums) and individual pricing will make it impossible to reach the expected results of the entire reporting.
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?
What is exactly meant by “frozen” funds?
Should we take into account also those transactions which were stopped due to some detection of any Fraud-Detection-System?
We are of the opinion that banks are obliged to comply with restrictive measures, other than targeted financial restrictive measures, adopted in accordance with Article 215 TFEU even today. By the implementation of IPR nothing should change significantly.
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?
We tried to describe our hesitations and uncertainties. We prepared a set of questions raised by banks – members of the Czech Banking Association. See above.
We are of the opinion that current wording allows for different interpretation of different reporting requirements for all banks (both, located within and outside the Eurozone). Even each bank may understand and therefore interpret used wording differently, which would undermine the comparability of the outcomes.
7. Do you perceive the reporting requirements to be proportionate? Is there information contained in the templates that is overly burdensome to report?
We tried to point out that in some areas – differentiating the volume, value and charges of free of charge outgoing (instant) credit transfers and charged one as well as distinguishing the charges based on initiation channel – either mobile or internet banking – are overly burdensome to report, as currently banks do not need to differentiate them for internal purposes, they do not collect them at all.
8. Do you have any other comments on the reporting requirements proposed in this CP?
What specifically should the two fields in the header of each particular templates/reports S 01.00 - S 04.00 ("Country" and "Name of PSP”) contain?
By “Country” is meant the name of the country from where the payment is sent and PSP will always be related to the provider of the payer?
“Reference period” – there are examples (26.10.2022 – 31. 12.2022 / 1. 1. 2023 – 21. 12. 2023 / …) – from which is not clear what reporting period will be the “normal one. A year?
We consider the target date – April 2025 – as unrealistic one. The explanation to open points has not been provided yet, we are of the meaning that there will be a need for changes of the text. Only then will be possible to set up appropriate date bearing in mind sufficient tome for implementation.