Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) are preparing to decide their position on the draft report by Marek Belka (S&D, Polish) regarding a new Payment Services Regulation (‘PSR’). However, ahead of the vote—scheduled for Wednesday, 14 February—the main political groups are still divided on certain points.
In June 2023, the European Commission presented a package of legislative proposals aiming to revise the directive governing payment services in the internal market (‘PSD2’) (see EUROPE 13211/15). This directive defines the legislation in force for payment service providers, the provisions relating to applications for authorisation, and the supervision of service providers.
Following a reassessment of the ‘PSD2’, the European Commission had decided that it would be useful to implement a new regulation on payment services in the EU (‘PSR’) and a new directive (‘PSD3’) that focuses on the authorisation of these payment services and the supervision of payment institutions.
Last November, the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU had given impetus to this dossier by submitting provisions relating to applications for authorisation to Member States (see EUROPE 13300/7).
Discussions had notably focused on exempting independent automated teller machines (ATMs), which do not manage payment accounts, from authorisation requirements. A prudential regime specifically adapted to these operators had been recommended by the previous presidency.
On the European Parliament’s side of things, MEPs on the ECON Committee are in the process of drawing up their draft compromises on the ‘PSR’ and the ‘PSD3’.
According to a source close to the matter, there are no major disagreements on the latter.
However, in light of the latest draft compromise amendments—copies of which were received by EUROPE—MEPs are still trying to come to an agreement on certain points in the ‘PSR’. At the heart of the discussions is the question of the ‘burden of proof’, which would, in the event of fraud, attribute responsibility to the consumer or the payment service provider.
To put it plainly, when a payment service user is manipulated by a third party impersonating the service provider or any other public or private entity, who is responsible? For The Left and the Greens/EFA groups, the text is reportedly not yet sufficiently explicit as to the chain of responsibility linking the service provider to the consumer.
See MEPs’ draft compromise amendments dated 21 January: https://aeur.eu/f/aoh
See MEPs’ draft compromise amendments dated 26 January: https://aeur.eu/f/aoi (Original version in French by Bernard Denuit)