EUROPEAN
COMMISSION

Brussels, 26.10.2022
COM(2022) 546 final
2022/0341 (COD)

Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Regulations (EU) No 260/2012 and (EU) 2021/1230 as regards instant credit
transfers in euro

(Text with EEA relevance){SEC(2022) 546 final} - {SWD(2022) 546 final} - {SWD(2022) 547 final}

EN

EN

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL•

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal

Instant payments (IPs) are a form of credit transfer whereby funds pass from the payer’s
account to the payee’s in a matter of seconds, at any time, day or night, and any day of theyear. This distinguishes IPs from other credit transfers, which are processed by payment
service providers (PSPs) 1 only during business hours, with the funds credited to the payee
only by the end of the following business day.
IPs are a major technological innovation in payments. They allow releasing funds that arelocked in the financial system, making them immediately available to end users – consumers
and businesses in the EU – for consumption and investment. IPs also offer opportunities forbanks and financial technology companies (fintechs) to develop new solutions for payments at
the point of interaction (PoI), whether at physical points of sale or in e-commerce transactions(e.g. using mobile payment applications on smartphones). Such solutions would help toreduce the currently high level of concentration in the PoI market, in particular for crossborder payments.
In the EU, the architecture for IPs in euro already exists. It comprises several payment
systems offering instant settlement, and the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) instant credit
transfer scheme (SCT Inst. Scheme) launched in November 2017 by the European Payments
Council (EPC) 2.
The significant potential benefits of IPs to consumers and businesses in the EU are however
impeded by the slow rollout and low uptake of IPs. At the end of 2021, only 11% of euro
credit transfers sent in the EU were IPs 3. The reasons for this are identified in the impact
assessment accompanying this proposal (see below).
In the Commission Communication of 5 December 2018, ‘Towards a stronger internationalrole of the euro’ 4, the Commission supported a fully integrated IP market in the EU, to reducerisks and vulnerabilities in retail payments and to increase the autonomy of existing payment
solutions. In its Communication of 24 September 2020 ‘Retail Payments Strategy for the
EU’ 5, the Commission announced that, if appropriate, it would propose legislation requiring
PSPs in the EU to offer IPs in euro by end-2021. The Council, in its Conclusions of 22 March
2021 6, highlighted promoting the widespread use of IPs as an objective of the retail payments
strategy. Moreover, in its Communication of 20 January 2021, ‘The European economic andfinancial system: fostering openness, strength and resilience’ 7, the Commission reiterated theimportance of its retail payments strategy and of digital innovation in finance as a way ofstrengthening the single market for financial services and thereby reinforcing its open
1

2

3
4
5
6
7

EN

A PSP is a provider of payment services as defined in Annex I to Directive 2015/2366 (PSD2), such as acredit institution, payment institution or electronic money institution.
The EPC is a private law association of PSPs, founded in 2002, which functions as a decision-making andcoordination body of the European payments industry, and with the main task of developing the Single
Euro Payment Area.
Source: EPC.
COM (2018) 796 final of 5 December 2018.
COM (2020) 592 final of 24 September 2020.
7225/21.
COM (2021) 32 final of 19 January 2021.

1

ENstrategic autonomy in the macro-economic and financial fields. Subsequently, theCommission included an initiative on IPs in the Commission work programme for 2022 8.
The Council, in its Conclusions of 5 April 2022 9, referred to the Commission’s intention topresent a legislative initiative on IPs, recalling the objective of fostering the development ofcompetitive home-grown and pan-European market-based payments solutions, and stressing
the importance of defining and effectively implementing a framework for an independent,
efficient, well-functioning, open and autonomous European payments area.
•

Consistency with existing policy provisions

Universal availability of euro IPs is a necessary part of updating and modernising SEPA.
SEPA allows European consumers, businesses and public administrations to make and receive
cross-border payments in euro as easily as domestic payments, and enables the public to use
their existing payment accounts in their home Member State to receive their salary or pay bills
between different Member States. The SEPA project was launched with the Commission’s
support in 2002, prompting the European banking industry to create the EPC which, at therequest of the Commission and European Central Bank (ECB), committed to developing
harmonised schemes of rules and procedures for executing euro payments, in close dialogue
with all stakeholders (including merchants and consumers). The SEPA scheme for euro credit
transfers was launched in 2008, and for SEPA direct debits in 2009. These two schemes wereeffectively made mandatory for payments in euro by the 2012 SEPA Regulation. 10 The SCT
Inst. Scheme was launched in 2017.
Two EU legal acts in the field of payments, the 2015 Directive on payment services in theinternal market (PSD2) 11 and the Regulation on cross-border payments 12, already apply to IPs
and will continue to do so after the entry into force of this proposal. PSD2 lays down rules
and obligations for PSPs and consumer rights for many types of commonly used payments inthe EU, including credit transfers; it is currently being evaluated and any possible proposals
for amendments will take full account of the present proposal. The Regulation on cross-border
payments requires that the same price be charged for euro cross-border payments as fordomestic payments of the corresponding type in the national currency (including credit
transfers and therefore IPs), processed by the same PSP (see below for further explanation on
the interaction of the Regulation on cross-border payments with this proposal).
When providing IPs, as for any other types of payments, PSPs must ensure that they have inplace appropriate and real-time fraud, money laundering and terrorist financing prevention
tools, in full conformity with existing EU legislation. This initiative has no incidence on therobustness of AML/CFT checks. In particular, the instantaneity of these payments, within lessthan 10 seconds, does not affect in any way the obligation from obliged entities to performtheir required AML/CFT checks and, if necessary, to introduce suspicious transaction reports(STRs). These are usually ex-post requirements, contrary to sanctions screening obligations
which must be performed before the transaction is executed (so within 10 seconds for IPs) andare therefore covered by the present proposal. Nor does this proposal affect in any manner the
8
9
10

11

12

EN

COM (2021) 645 final of 19 October 2021.
6301/22.
Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012
establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro.
Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on
payment services in the internal market.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on crossborder payments in the Union (codification).

2ENeffectiveness and timeliness of the examination by the Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs) of
such STRs.
•

Consistency with other EU policies

The initiative is fully consistent with other Commission initiatives laid out in theCommission’s digital finance strategy for the EU 13, adopted together with the retail payment
strategy (RPS), aimed at promoting digital transformation of finance and the EU economy,
and removing fragmentation in the digital single market.
It is also fully consistent with Commission Communication ‘Towards a stronger internationalrole of the euro’ 14, in which the Commission supported a fully integrated instant payment
system in the EU, to reduce risks and vulnerabilities in retail payment systems and to increase
the autonomy of existing payment solutions. It is also consistent with the Commission’s 2021
Communication on ‘The European economic and financial system: fostering openness,
strength and resilience’ 15, which reiterated the importance of its retail payments strategy andof digital innovation in finance for strengthening the single market for financial services. The
same Communication confirmed that the Commission and ECB services would jointly review
at technical level a broad range of policy, legal and technical questions emerging from apossible introduction of a digital euro, taking into account their respective mandates provided
for in the EU Treaties. A legislative initiative on digital euro has been included also in theCommission work programme for 2023.
The full deployment of IPs is one of the main elements of the retail payments strategy 16 of the
ECB, who also provides the TARGET Instant Payment Settlement (TIPS) service. Therefore,
the ECB may be invited to produce an opinion on this proposal.
2.

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY•

Legal basis

The appropriate legal basis is Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU), which tasks the European institutions with laying down provisions to establish
the single market and ensure its proper functioning in line with Article 26 TFEU. This is thelegal basis used for existing EU legislation in the area of payments, such as the SEPA
Regulation, PSD2, and the Regulation on cross-border payments.
•

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)

Only EU measures can require all relevant PSPs in the EU to provide the service of sending
and receiving cross-border IPs. Member States alone cannot provide for harmonised EU rules
on cross-border IPs, be it on sanctions screening or the protection of the payer in the event offraud or errors. In addition, SEPA for non-instant credit transfers and direct debits wasestablished by an EU Regulation and the present proposal further develops SEPA.
•

Proportionality

Only PSPs offering a credit transfer service in euro to their customers are covered by therequirement to offer IPs in euro. The SEPA Regulation already excludes payment transactions
13
14
15
16

EN

COM (2020) 591 final of 24 September 2020.
COM (2018) 796 final of 5 December 2018.
COM (2021) 32 final of 19 January 2021.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.eurosystemretailpaymentsstrategy~5a74eb9ac1.en.pdf

3ENcarried out between and within PSPs, including their agents or branches, for their own
account. Furthermore, payment institutions 17 and electronic money institutions 18 are notcovered since currently, under the Settlement Finality Directive (SFD) 19, they cannot
participate in settlement systems designated under that Directive, which includes many EU
settlement systems widely used for credit transfers and IPs. This may be reconsidered in lightof future amendments to SFD after it is reviewed. Nevertheless, under this proposal payment
institutions and electronic money institutions will not be prevented from offering IPs to their
PSUs on a voluntary basis. The proposal also provides for staggered deadlines for the servicesof receiving and sending IPs and for PSPs inside and outside the euro area.
•

Choice of the instrument

Given that the SEPA Regulation lays down technical and business requirements for all credit
transfers in euro and that IPs in euro are a new category of credit transfers in euro, it isappropriate for the present proposal to amend that Regulation.
3.

RESULTSOF
EX POSTEVALUATIONS,CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS•

Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation

STAKEHOLDER

On 23 November 2017, the Commission presented a report on the functioning of the SEPA
Regulation in accordance with Article 15 of the Regulation 20. The report concluded that,
overall, the SEPA Regulation was being correctly applied across the EU and that there was noneed for a follow-up legislative proposal.
However, since IPs did not exist when the SEPA Regulation was adopted in 2012, it did notcontain specific provisions on this new category of credit transfers in euro. Adding specificprovisions on IPs in euro to the SEPA Regulation reflects the modernisation of euro credit
transfer technologies, allowing instant processing.
•

Stakeholder consultations

To ensure that the Commission’s proposal takes account of the views of all interested
stakeholders, the consultation strategy for this initiative comprised:–a public consultation to inform the Commission’s retail payments strategy (RPS),
open from 3 April to 26 June 2020 21;–

a public consultation on the inception impact assessment for the present initiative,
open from 10 March to 7 April 2021 22;–

an open public consultation, open from 31 March to 23 June 2021 23;

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

EN

As defined in Article 4(4) PSD2.
As defined in point (1) of Article 2 of Directive 2009/110/EC (Electronic Money Regulation).
Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality
in payment and securities settlement systems.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/171123-report-sepa-requirements_en.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/finance-2020-retail-payments-strategy_en
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12931-Instant-payments_en
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12931-Instant-Payments/publicconsultation_en

4

EN

–

a targeted consultation of the payments industry, open from 24 March to
12 June 2021 24;–

consultations of stakeholders in two Commission Expert Groups: the financial
services user group (FSUG), and the payment systems market expert group(PSMEG);–ad hoc contacts with various stakeholders, either on their initiative or theCommission’s;–a webinar on the potential benefits of IPs for consumers and businesses, given by theCommission's Directorate‑General for Financial Stability, Financial Services andCapital Markets Union on 10 June 2021 25;–

consultations of Member States’ experts in the Commission Expert Group onbanking payments and insurance, and the Expert Group on Union restrictive
measures and extra-territoriality and ad hoc workshops on sanctions screening.

The outcome of these consultations is summarised in Annex 2 to the impact assessment
accompanying this proposal.
•

Collection and use of expertise

A number of inputs and sources of expertise were used in preparing this initiative, including
the following:–

evidence supplied through the various consultations listed above;–a study carried out by a contractor, Fidelis Consulting, ‘IPs, Current and foreseeable
benefits’, delivered in 2021 26;–

information provided regularly by the EPC on the membership and use of the SCT
and SCT Inst. Schemes;–

information provided by the ECB and national payments committees;–

the ORBIS database;–the European Banking Authority (EBA) register of payment and electronic money
institutions under PSD2;–

a discussion paper on the EBA’s preliminary observations on selected payment fraud
data under PSD2, as reported by the industry;–evidence provided by PSPs and other types of providers, especially on costs, throughtargeted consultations and bilateral contacts;–

evidence provided by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), in particular on
pricing of IPs in euro.

24

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/regulation-and-supervision/consultations/2021-instantpayments_en#:~:text=%E2%80%A2%E2%80%A2%E2%80%A2,Target%20group,be%20addressed%20to%20all%20stakeholders.

25

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/events/webinar-exploring-potential-instant-payments-eu-consumers-andbusinesses-2021-06-10_en
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/735d5b9d-0c5e-11ec-adb101aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-228471178

26

EN

5

EN

•

Impact assessment

This proposal is accompanied by an impact assessment 27, which was submitted to theRegulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) on 27 April 2022 and, following a re-submission on
8 July 2022, approved on 7 September 2022.
The impact assessment considers that the key problem is the low uptake of euro IPs, measured
as a percentage of all credit transfers in euro sent in the EU (about 11%). There are twoconsequences of this problem:–

unrealised benefits and efficiency gains from IPs, both at macro level and for specificcategories of stakeholders, including consumers, merchants, corporate users, PSPs
and financial technology companies (fintechs), and public administrations including
tax authorities;–

limited choice of means of payment at the PoI, particularly for cross-bordertransactions.

Four problem drivers were identified, two on the supply side and two on the demand side:–insufficient incentives for PSPs to offer euro IPs (supply-side driver);–dissuasive transaction charges for IPs compared to alternative payment means(demand-side driver);–high rate of rejected IPs wrongly identified as involving persons on EU sanctions
lists (supply-side driver).

–payer concerns about security of IPs (demand-side driver).

The impact assessment presents a package of preferred options, corresponding to the four
problem drivers identified:–a requirement for PSPs providing a regular euro credit transfer service (with targeted
exclusions) to offer sending and receiving of IPs in euro;–a requirement for PSPs not to charge more for IPs in euro than for regular credit
transfers in euro;–a requirement for sanctions screening in the form of very frequent checking of clients
against EU sanctions lists (as is already done in certain Member States for domestic
payments), rather than for each individual transaction;–a requirement for PSPs to offer a service enabling customers to be notified when amismatch is detected between the payee’s name and international bank accountnumber (IBAN), as supplied by the payer;

The above requirements are introduced through an amendment to the SEPA Regulation which
also governs other types of euro payments, including non-instant credit transfers. However,
the requirements pertaining to sanctions screening and payer protection are limited only toeuro IPs, for which the underlying problem drivers were found to be the most impactful. With
IPs it is impossible for PSPs to verify within 10 seconds whether the flagged transaction
involves persons on EU sanctions lists and, as a result, such a transaction is unjustifiably
rejected. For non-instant credit transfers this problem does not arise. Moreover, the feeling of27

EN

Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2022) 546.

6EN

having more options to recover funds in case of fraud or errors when non-instant credit
transfers are used discourages payers from adopting IPs to a greater extent than for noninstant credit transfers.
The impact assessment identified material, but proportionate, one-off implementation costs
involved in offering IPs for PSPs that do not yet do so, and, for most PSPs, in providing a way
to check that the payee’s IBAN matches the payee name. Ongoing costs for PSPs would be
limited. Overall, the cost impact for PSPs would be neutral over time, in light of significant
savings from the proposed new approach for sanctions screening, less time and effort spent
following up fraud and errors, reduced costs related to handling cash and cheques, and theprospect of competing more effectively with the incumbents on the PoI market and offering
innovative IP-based PoI solutions, including for cross-border payments.
A wide range of benefits will be derived from improved liquidity and cash-flow. These willaccrue to all recipients of IPs, including consumers, merchants, corporate users and public
administrations, including tax authorities, significantly boosting their economic efficiency.
Currently, many billions of euro are in transit in payment systems at any given time and notavailable for consumption or investment.
Greater use of IPs will also stimulate the development of new payment solutions, so that IPs
can be used at the PoI to buy goods and services, in particular in cross-border transactions.
This will increase competition in the sector and produce cost reductions for merchants, who
can potentially pass them on to consumers.
•

Regulatory fitness and simplification

The present initiative is not a regulatory fitness and performance programme (REFIT)
initiative. Although it takes the form of an amendment to the SEPA Regulation, which lays
down requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro, it is not based on an
evaluation of that Regulation, and it does not amend that Regulation beyond what is necessary
to incorporate new provisions on IPs specifically.
In line with the ‘one-in, one-out’ principle, the Commission has committed to ‘compensate to
the extent possible’ adjustment costs of new initiatives and to offset new administrative costs
by correspondingly reducing administrative costs of other initiatives 28. However, this
proposal does not involve administrative costs for businesses, citizens or public authorities, as
the initiative will not lead to any increased oversight or supervision of PSPs, or to specificreporting obligations. There are also no regulatory fees and charges arising from the initiative.
Although adjustment costs do not need to be offset according to the ‘one in one out principle’,the recurrent cost savings for PSPs from the new approach to sanctions screening are likely tomore than offset adjustment costs generated by the other components of this proposal, giving
negative adjustment costs (i.e. savings) for the initiative overall 29.
•

Fundamental rights

The initiative is consistent with fundamental rights.

28

29

EN

Administrative costs are defined as “costs borne by businesses, citizens, civil society organisations andpublic authorities as a result of administrative activities performed to comply with administrative
obligations included in legal rules”.
See Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2022) 546

7ENTo the extent processing of personal data is necessary for the compliance with this initiative,
the processing must be in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 30.
This initiative lays down an obligation to verify the discrepancies between the name andpayment account identifier of the payee in case of euro IPs. When payees are natural persons,processing of their names and payment account identifiers is proportionate and necessary to
prevent fraudulent transactions and detect errors. The proposal further lays down a procedure
to verify whether any of PSPs’ customers are designated persons or entities subject to EU
sanctions. It establishes clear rules concerning the frequency of and responsibility for suchverifications. The initiative ensures that any personal data to carry out such verifications areadequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary.
4.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS

The present proposal has no implications for the EU budget.
5.

OTHER ELEMENTS•

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements

The general objective of increasing the volume of euro IPs relative to all euro credit transfers
can be monitored on an ongoing basis based on data from the EPC, which manages the SCT
and SCT Inst. schemes. Monitoring the uptake of euro IPs in various use cases (including at
the PoI) and of volumes of euro IPs compared to cash or cards will require data to besynthesised from a number of different sources, with the assistance of the ECB and the EBA.
There will be no new reporting requirements for PSPs.
•

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal

Subject matter, scope and definitions
The proposal introduces additional provisions into the SEPA Regulation on IPs in euro andspecifies which PSPs must comply with these provisions.
Four new definitions are introduced:EN–‘instant credit transfer’, which sets out key technical requirements and clarifies that it
is a sub-category of credit transfers in euro;–‘PSU interface’ (payment service user interface), which further clarifies provisions
on the right of payment service users to initiate IPs through the same channels they
use to initiate other credit transfers, and provisions on charges for corresponding
credit transfer transactions in euro;–‘payment account identifier’, which clarifies that a ‘payment account identifier’referred to in Article 5, point 1(a), of the SEPA Regulation and in Article 5c of thepresent proposal, should be considered as the unique identifier referred to in
Article 88 of PSD2 and defined in Article 4, point (33) of that Directive; and–‘listed persons or entities’, which clarifies that PSPs should follow the procedure laid
down in Article 5d of the present proposal to ensure that they comply with EU

30

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on theprotection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement ofsuch data.

8ENsanctions involving the obligation to freeze the assets of individual persons or
entities and not to make funds or economic resources directly or indirectly available
to them.
Moreover, the existing definition of ‘retail payment system’ is amended to reflect various
ways of settling retail payment transactions, including non-batch settlement (per individualtransaction) and the round-the-clock execution of IPs in real time.
Mandatory provision of instant credit transfers in euro (Article 5a)PSPs that provide credit transfers in euro will be required to offer the service of sending andreceiving IPs in euro. A number of technical specifications are laid down for this service,including the requirement to receive payment orders and be reachable for IPs 24 hours a day,365 days a year, without any possibility to set up cut-off times or limit the processing of IPs tobusiness days only. Payment institutions and electronic money institutions are excluded fromthis requirement given their restricted access to payment systems.
Customer (PSU) interfaces via which orders for credit transfers may be submitted must also
allow the submitting of orders for IPs. Where a PSP provides the option of submitting
multiple payment orders for credit transfers packaged together in bulk, it must offer the same
service for euro IPs.
The introduction of these requirements will be staggered, with four separate dates as follows:–

receiving of IPs in euro for PSPs in the euro area: 6 months after entry into force of
the Regulation;–

sending of IPs in euro for PSPs in the euro area: 12 months after entry into force;–

receiving of IPs in euro for PSPs outside the euro area: 30 months after entry into
force;–

sending of IPs in euro for PSPs outside the Euro area: 36 months after entry into
force.

Charges for IPs (Article 5b and amendment to Regulation (EU) 2021/1230)
Charges applied by PSPs for sending or receiving euro IPs should be no higher than the same
PSP’s charges for sending or receiving a non-instant credit transfer in euro. This requirement
will apply to all PSPs offering euro IPs, including those not required to offer IPs (such as
payment institutions and electronic money institutions). It will apply for PSPs in the euro area
as from 6 months after entry into force of the Regulation, and for PSPs outside the euro area
as from 30 months after entry into force.
For certain euro IP transactions, namely cross-border euro IPs executed by a PSP located in a
non-euro area Member State, the application of Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 on cross-border
payments could lead to a higher charge than required by this proposal. Article 3(1) ofRegulation (EU) 2021/1230 provides that, ‘Charges levied by a payment service provider on a
payment service user in respect of cross-border payments in euro shall be the same as the
charges levied by that payment service provider for corresponding national payments of thesame value in the national currency of the Member State in which the payment service
provider of the payment service user is located’. A cross-border euro IP and a domestic IP in
the national currency would be such corresponding payments.
When pricing a cross-border euro IP, a PSP located outside the euro area would be obliged,
under the current proposal, to charge either the same as or less than it charges for a non-

EN

9

EN

instant cross-border euro credit transfer, and, under the Regulation on cross-border payments,
exactly the same as for a domestic IP denominated in the national currency. However,compliance with both requirements would not be possible where such a PSP currently applies
higher charges for a domestic IP in the national currency than for cross-border non-instantcredit transfers in euro.
In order to fully achieve the objective to steer PSUs towards IPs in euro, Regulation (EU)2021/1230 is amended to ensure that a cross-border euro IP should be priced at the same or alower level than a corresponding regular cross-border euro credit transfer, even if this meansthat the price for such cross-border euro IP is not the same as the price for a corresponding
domestic IP in the national currency.
Discrepancies between the name and payment account identifier of a payee (Article 5c)
All PSPs offering the service of sending of euro IPs (including those not under an obligation
to do so) are required to provide their PSUs with a service checking that the payee’s IBAN31
matches the payee’s name and notifying the PSU of any detected discrepancy. The
notification must be given before the payer finalises the IP payment order and before the PSPs
executes the IP. The user remains free to decide whether to submit the payment order for an
IP in all cases.
The use of such a service by a user does not affect the PSP’s liability for non-execution,
defective or late execution of IPs, as laid down in Articles 88 and 89 of PSD2.
PSPs should notify PSUs of any detected discrepancy between the payee’s name and payment
account identifier, as provided by the payer, for both national and cross-border instant credit
transfers in euro. This proposal does not prevent PSPs from offering such a service withrespect to also other types of credit transfers and not just to instant ones.
PSPs may charge a fee for the use of such a service and PSUs are not obliged to use it.
This requirement will apply to PSPs in the euro area as from 12 months after entry into force,and for PSPs outside the euro area as from 36 months after entry into force. These deadlines
are fully aligned with the dates for the introduction of the requirement to offer the service ofsending euro IPs.
Screening IPs for EU sanctions (Article 5d)PSPs are required to follow a harmonised approach so that EU sanctions can be applied
without the duplications, inefficiencies and resultant frictions caused by PSPs applying
divergent screening processes. The harmonised approach relates to the specific types ofsanctions applicable to individual persons and entities, i.e. the requirement to freeze assets
and not to make funds or economic resources available to such persons and entities. A
consolidated list of such persons and entities is maintained by the Commission services 32.
PSPs are required to verify at least once a day whether any of their customers are designatedpersons or entities subject to EU sanctions, and in any event immediately after the entry into
force of any new or amended designations.

31

32

EN

IBAN serves as the unique identifier as defined in Article 4(33) of PSD2 and payment account identifier
as referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012.
https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/consolidated-list-of-persons-groups-and-entities-subject-to-eufinancial-sanctions?locale=en

10ENA harmonised approach provides PSPs with much needed legal certainty and thus eliminate
frictions that prevent the effective execution of euro IPs, while not compromising the overall
effectiveness of sanctions screening.
Where a payer or payee’s PSP fails to carry out the required verification and is subsequently
involved in executing an IP for a payer or a payee subject to EU sanctions, it is liable for any
financial damage to the other PSP involved in the IP resulting from penalties under EU
sanctions regulations. This requirement will apply to all PSPs covered by Article 5d as from
6 months after entry into force.
Penalties (Article 11)
Penalties for PSPs’ non-compliance with legal requirements contained in this proposal are theresponsibility of the Member States. Penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Minimum levels for the penalties which national authorities may impose for failing to comply
with EU sanctions obligations are laid down in the new paragraph 1b of Article 11 of the
SEPA Regulation. Member States must notify the Commission of the applicable penalties intheir jurisdiction.

EN

11

EN

2022/0341 (COD)
Proposal for a
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Regulations (EU) No 260/2012 and (EU) 2021/1230 as regards instant credit
transfers in euro
(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular
Article 114 thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee 33,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank 34,
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,
Whereas:(1)

Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 35
provides the foundation for the single euro payments area (SEPA). To create
favourable conditions for increased competition, in particular for payments at point ofinteraction (PoI), the SEPA project should be continuously updated to reflect
innovation and market developments in payments, promote the development of new
Union-wide payment products, and facilitate access for new market entrants.

(2)

In 2017, a Union-wide scheme for the instant execution of credit transfers in euro wasagreed between payment service providers (PSPs) under the auspices of the European
Payments Council. The efforts of the European payments industry have not provensufficient to ensure a high uptake at Union level of instant credit transfers in euro.
Only a widespread and rapid increase in that uptake can unlock the full-scale network
effects of instant credit transfers in euro, leading to benefits and economic efficiency
gains for payments services users (PSUs) and providers, reduced market
concentration, increased competition and choice of electronic payments, in particular
for cross-border payments at PoI.

(3)

Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 established technical and business requirements for
credit transfers and direct debits in euro. Instant credit transfers in euro are a relatively
new category of credit transfers in euro which emerged on the market only after the33

OJ C […], […], p. […].
OJ C […], […], p. […].
Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012
establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro andamending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22).

34
35

EN

12

EN

adoption of that Regulation. It is therefore necessary to provide for specificrequirements for instant credit transfers in euro, in addition to the general requirements
applicable to all credit transfers.

EN

(4)

A number of national regulatory solutions have already been adopted or proposed toincrease the uptake of instant credit transfers in euro, including by strengthening
PSUs’ protection from sending funds to an unintended payee or specifying the processof compliance with obligations flowing from Union sanctions. Those national
regulatory solutions pose a risk of fragmentation of the internal market, thusincreasing the compliance costs due to different sets of national regulatory
requirements, and making the execution of cross-border instant credit transfers moredifficult.

(5)

Prior to the emergence of instant credit transfers, payment transactions were generally
bundled by PSPs and submitted to a retail payment system for clearing and settlement
purposes at pre-specified times. However, in retail payment systems currently used toprocess instant credit transfers in euro, payment transactions are submitted
individually, processed in real time and round the clock. To reflect this, it is necessary
to amend the definition of ‘retail payment system’.

(6)

Ensuring that all PSUs in the Union are able to place payment orders for and receive
instant credit transfers in euro is a precondition for an increased uptake of suchtransactions. Currently, at least one third of PSPs in the Union do not offer instantcredit transfers in euro. Moreover, the rate at which PSPs have been adding instantcredit transfers to their services has been, over the last few years, too slow, whichhinders further integration of the Union’s internal payments market. Therefore, PSPs
should be required to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfersin euro.

(7)

To create an integrated market for instant credit transfers in euro, it is essential thatsuch transactions are processed in accordance with a common set of rules andrequirements. An instant credit transfer in euro enables funds to be credited to theaccount of the payee within seconds and round the clock. The round the clock
availability every day of the year is an intrinsic feature of instant credit transfers.
Therefore, it is appropriate that the definition of instant credit transfers refers to thespecific conditions that they should meet regarding the time of receipt of payment
orders, processing, crediting and value dating.

(8)

There is a variety of interfaces through which PSUs can place a payment order for acredit transfer in euro, including via online banking, a mobile application, an
automated teller machine, in a branch, or by phone. To ensure that all PSUs haveaccess to instant credit transfers in euro, there should be no difference in terms of theinterfaces through which PSUs can place payment orders for instant and other types ofcredit transfer transactions. Moreover, where it is possible for a PSU to submit to a
PSP payment orders for credit transfers packaged together, that same possibility
should also be available with respect to instant credit transfers in euro. PSPs should be
able to offer all credit transfers in euro initiated by their PSUs as instant by default.

(9)

It would not be proportionate to impose on payment institutions and electronic money
institutions an obligation to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit
transfers in euro, because those institutions cannot be admitted as participants in apayment system designated in accordance with Directive 98/26/EC of the European

13

ENParliament and of the Council 36. Those institutions may therefore experience
difficulties in accessing the infrastructure necessary to execute instant credit transfers.
It is therefore appropriate to exclude payment institutions and electronic money
institutions from the obligation to offer the service of sending and receiving instantcredit transfers in euro.
(10)

PSUs are very sensitive to the level of charges for substitutable payment methods. The
level of charges can therefore steer them towards or away from a given payment
method. In those national markets where higher transaction-level charges for instantcredit transfers in euro compared to charges for other types of credit transfers in euro
have been applied, the uptake of instant credit transfers is low. That has prevented theattainment of the critical mass of instant credit transfers in euro that is necessary torealise the full network effects for PSPs and PSUs alike. All types of charges applied
to payers and payees for the execution of instant credit transfers in euro, including pertransaction charges or lump sum charges, should therefore not exceed such charges
applied to the same PSU for corresponding types of other credit transfers in euro.
When identifying corresponding types of credit transfers, it should be possible to use
criteria including the PSU interface or the payment instrument used to initiate thepayment, customer status and, where relevant, whether the payment is national or
cross-border.

(11)

Security of instant credit transfers in euro is fundamental for increasing PSUs’
confidence in such services and ensuring their use. Payers intending to send a credit
transfer to a given payee may, as a result of fraud or error, provide a payment accountidentifier which does not correspond to an account held by that payee. Under Directive(EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council 37, the only
determinant of the correct execution of the transaction with respect to the payee is theunique identifier, and PSPs are not required to verify the name of the payee. In thecase of instant credit transfers, there is not enough time for the payer to realise theoccurrence of a fraud or error and to try to recover the funds before they are credited tothe payee’s account. PSPs should therefore verify whether there is any discrepancy
between the unique identifier of the payee and the name of the payee provided by thepayer, and notify the payer placing a payment order for an instant credit transfer ineuro about any such discrepancies detected. To avoid undue frictions or delays in theprocessing of the transaction instantly, the payer’s PSP should provide such
notification within no more than a few seconds from the moment the payer provided
the payee information. To allow the payer to decide whether to proceed with theintended transaction, the payer’s PSP should provide such notification before the payer
authorises the transaction.

(12)

Some attributes of the name of the payee to whose account the payer wishes to makean instant credit transfer may increase the likelihood of a discrepancy being detectedby the PSP, including the presence of diacritics or different possible transliterations ofnames in different alphabets, differences between habitually used names and names
indicated on formal identification documents in case of natural persons, or differences
between commercial and legal names in case of legal persons. To avoid undue

36

37

EN

Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality
in payment and securities settlement systems (OJ L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 45).
Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on
payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU
and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).

14

ENfrictions in the processing of instant credit transfers in euro and facilitate the payer’s
decision on whether to proceed with the intended transaction, PSPs should indicate thedegree of such discrepancy, including by indicating in the notification that there is ‘nomatch’ or ‘close match’.

EN

(13)

Authorising a payment transaction where the PSP has detected a discrepancy and has
notified that discrepancy to the PSU can result in the funds being transferred to an
unintended payee. In such cases, PSPs should not be held liable for the execution of
the transaction to an unintended payee, as laid down in Article 88 of Directive (EU)2015/2366. PSPs should inform PSUs about the implications for PSP liability and PSU
refunds rights of their choice to ignore the notified discrepancy. PSUs should be able
to opt out from using that service at any time during their contractual relationship with
the PSP. After opting out, PSUs should be able to opt in to again avail of the service.

(14)

It is of critical importance that PSPs effectively comply with their obligations
stemming from Union sanctions against persons, bodies or entities that are subject toan asset freeze or a prohibition to make funds or economic resources available to it, orfor its benefit, either directly or indirectly, pursuant to restrictive measures adopted inaccordance with Article 215 TFEU (listed persons or entities). Union law, however,does not lay down rules on the procedure or tools to be used by PSPs to ensure theircompliance with those obligations. PSPs thus apply various methods, based on theirindividual choice or on the guidance provided by the national authorities concerned.
The practice of complying with obligations stemming from Union sanctions byscreening the payer and the payee involved in each credit transfer transaction, either
national or cross-border, leads to a very high number of credit transfers being flagged
as potentially involving listed persons or entities. However, the large majority of suchflagged transactions turn out, after verification, not to involve any such persons or
entities. Due to the nature of instant credit transfers, it is impossible for PSPs to verify,
within short time limits, such flagged transactions instantly and, as a result, they are
rejected. That situation creates operational challenges for PSPs to offer instant credit
transfers to their PSUs across the Union in a reliable and predictable way. To provide
for greater legal certainty, increase the efficiency of PSPs’ efforts to comply with their
obligations stemming from Union sanctions in the context of instant credit transfers in
euro, and to prevent unnecessary hindering of such transactions, PSPs should thus
verify, at least daily, whether their PSUs are listed persons or entities, and should nolonger apply transaction-based screening.

(15)

To prevent the initiation of instant credit transfers from payment accounts belonging tolisted persons or entities and to immediately freeze funds sent to such accounts, PSPs
should carry out verifications of their PSUs as soon as possible following the entry
into force of a new restrictive measure adopted in accordance with Article 215 TFEU
providing for asset freeze or prohibition of making funds or economic resources
available, thus ensuring that PSPs comply with their obligations stemming from Union
sanctions in an effective manner.

(16)

Failure of one PSP to carry out timely verifications of its PSUs could result in a failureof the other PSP involved in carrying out the same instant credit transfer transaction to
freeze funds of a listed person or entity or not to make funds or economic resources
available to such person or entity. PSPs that incur penalties for non-compliance with
their obligations stemming from Union sanctions due to the failure of another PSP to
carry out timely verifications of its PSUs should be compensated for those penalties bythat PSP.

15

EN

(17)

The infringements of this Regulation should be subject to penalties, imposed by thecompetent authorities of the Member States. Such penalties should be effective,
proportionate and dissuasive. To facilitate the mutual trust of PSPs and the relevant
competent authorities in the uniform and thorough implementation of a harmonised
approach to compliance with PSP obligations stemming from Union sanctions, it is inparticular appropriate to harmonise across the Union the minimum levels for penalties
for the infringement by PSPs of their obligations to verify whether their PSUs arelisted persons or entities.

(18)

PSPs need sufficient time to meet the obligations laid down in this Regulation. It istherefore appropriate to introduce those obligations gradually, allowing PSPs a more
efficient use of their resources. The obligation to offer the service of sending instantcredit transfers should therefore apply later, preceded by the obligation to offer theservice of receiving instant credit transfers, since the sending of instant credit transfers
tends to be more costly and complex of the two services to implement and therefore
necessitates more time. The service of notifying detected discrepancies between thename and payment account identifier of the payee to the payer is only relevant forPSPs offering the service of sending instant credit transfers. The obligation to offerthat service should therefore apply from the same time as the obligation to offer theservice of sending instant credit transfers. The obligations related to charges andharmonised procedure to ensure compliance with obligations stemming from Union
sanctions should apply as soon as PSPs are obliged to offer the service of receiving
instant credit transfers. To allow PSPs located in Member States whose currency is not
the euro to efficiently allocate the resources needed for the implementation of instantcredit transfers in euro, the obligations laid down in this Regulation should apply tosuch PSPs as of a later date than to PSPs located in Member States whose currency isthe euro with the same gradual approach for introducing various obligations as for
PSPs located in the euro area.

(19)

Under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 of the European Parliament and of theCouncil 38, charges applied by a PSP located in a Member State whose currency is not
the euro in respect of cross-border credit transfers in euro are to be the same as charges
applied by that PSP in respect of national credit transfers in the national currency ofthat Member State. In situations where such a PSP applies higher charges for national
instant credit transfers in the national currency than for national non-instant credit
transfers in the national currency, and therefore also higher charges than for crossborder non-instant credit transfers in euro, the level of charges that such a PSP would
be required to apply under Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 in respect of crossborder instant credit transfers in euro would be higher than charges for cross-bordernon-instant credit transfers in euro. In such situations, to avoid conflicting
requirements and taking into account the key objective of steering PSUs towards
instant credit transfers in euro, it is appropriate to require that charges applied topayers and payees for cross-border instant credit transfers in euro do not exceed thecharges applied for cross-border non-instant credit transfers in euro.

(20)

Regulations (EU) No 260/2012 and (EU) 2021/1230 should therefore be amended
accordingly.

38

EN

Regulation (EU) 2021/1230 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 July 2021 on crossborder payments in the Union (OJ L 274, 30.7.2021, p. 20).

16

EN

(21)

Any processing of personal data in the context of providing instant credit transfers, orthe service detecting and notifying discrepancies between the name and payment
account identifier of a payee, as well as verifying whether PSUs are listed persons or
entities should be in line with the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European
Parliament and of the Council 39. Processing of the names and the payment accountidentifiers of natural persons is proportionate and necessary to prevent fraudulent
transactions, detect errors and ensure the compliance with restrictive measures adopted
in accordance with Article 215 TFEU providing for asset freeze or prohibition of
making funds or economic resources available.

(22)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to provide the necessary uniform rules
for cross-border instant credit transfers in euro at Union level and to increase theoverall uptake of instant credit transfers in euro, cannot be sufficiently achieved by
Member States because they cannot impose obligations on PSPs located in otherMember States, but can rather, by reason of scale, be better achieved at Union level,
the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set
out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle ofproportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what isnecessary in order to achieve its objectives.

(23)

The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article
42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council 40
and delivered an opinion on [XX XX 2022] 41,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Amendments to Regulation (EU) No 260/2012
Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 is amended as follows:(1)

Article 2 is amended as follows:(a)the following points (1a) to (1d) are inserted:‘(1a) ‘instant credit transfer’ means a credit transfer which meets all of thefollowing conditions:

39

40

41

EN

(a)

the time of receipt of the payment order for such credit transfer isthe moment when the payer instructs his or her PSP to execute thatcredit transfer, regardless of the day or hour;(b)the payment order for such credit transfer is immediately processedby the payer’s PSP, regardless of the day or hour;

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on theprotection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement ofsuch data.
Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on theprotection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions,bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (Text with EEA relevance.), (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39–98).
OJ C […], […], p. […].

17

EN

(c)

the payee’s payment account is credited with the amounttransferred within 10 seconds after the time of receipt of thepayment order;(d)the credit value date for the payee’s payment account is the samedate as the date on which the payee’s payment account is creditedwith the amount transferred;(1b) ‘PSU interface’ means any method, device or procedure through which
the payer can place a paper-based or electronic payment order to its PSP
for a credit transfer, including online banking, mobile banking
application, automated teller machine, or in any other way on thepremises of the PSP;(1c) ‘payment account identifier’ means a unique identifier as defined in
Article 4, point (33), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European
Parliament and of the Council*1;(1d) ‘listed persons or entities’ means natural or legal persons, bodies orentities that are subject to an asset freeze or a prohibition to make funds
or economic resources available to it, or for its benefit, either directly or
indirectly, pursuant to restrictive measures adopted in accordance with
Article 215 TFEU;________________________________________________________*1(b)

Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives
2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, andrepealing Directive 2007/64/EC (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 35).’;point (22) is replaced by the following:‘(22) ‘retail payment system’ means a payment system the main purpose ofwhich is to process, clear or settle credit transfers or direct debits which
are primarily of small amount, and that is not a large-value payment
system;’;(2)

the following Articles 5a to 5d are inserted:‘Article 5a
Instant credit transfer transactions
1. PSPs that offer to their PSUs a payment service of sending and receiving credit
transfers shall offer to all their PSUs a payment service of sending and receiving
instant credit transfers.
However, this paragraph shall not apply to electronic money institutions as defined in
Article 2, point (1), of Directive 2009/110/EC and payment institutions as defined in
Article 4, point (4), of Directive (EU) 2015/2366.
2. When carrying out instant credit transfers, PSPs shall, in addition to therequirements set out in Article 5, comply with the following requirements:(a)ENthey shall ensure that payers are able to place a payment order for an instantcredit transfer through the same PSU interfaces as the ones through whichthose payers can place a payment order for other credit transfers;

18

EN

(b)

after receiving a payment order for an instant credit transfer, they shallimmediately verify whether all the necessary conditions for processing thepayment are met and whether the necessary funds are available, reserve theamount on the account of the payer and instantly send the payment transaction
to the payee’s PSP;(c)they shall ensure that all payment accounts they maintain are reachable for
instant credit transfers 24 hours a day and on any calendar day;(d)after having received an instant credit transfer, they shall immediately make theamount of that transaction available on the payee’s payment account.

3. When providing instant credit transfers in euro, PSPs shall offer to their PSUs thepossibility to submit multiple payment orders as a package if they offer thatpossibility to their PSUs for other types of credit transfers.
4. PSPs as referred to in paragraph 1 that are located in a Member State whose
currency is the euro shall offer PSUs the service of receiving instant credit transfersin euro by … [PO please insert the date = 6 months after the date of entry into forceof this Regulation], and the service of sending instant credit transfers in euro by …
[PO please insert the date = 12 months after the date of entry into force of thisRegulation].
PSPs as referred to in paragraph 1 located in a Member State whose currency is not
the euro shall offer PSUs the service of receiving instant credit transfers in euro by…[ PO please insert the date = 30 months after the date of entry into force of thisRegulation], and the service of sending instant credit transfers in euro by …[ POplease insert the date = 36 months after the date of entry into force of thisRegulation].
Article 5b
Charges in respect of instant credit transfers
1. Any charges applied by a PSP on payers and payees in respect of sending andreceiving instant credit transfer transactions in euro shall not be higher than the
charges applied by that PSP in respect of sending and receiving other, corresponding,credit transfer transactions in euro.
2. PSPs located in a Member State whose currency is the euro shall comply with this
Article by …[ PO please insert the date = 6 months after the date of entry into forceof this Regulation].
PSPs located in a Member State whose currency is not the euro shall comply withthis Article by …[ PO please insert the date = 30 months after the date of entry into
force of this Regulation].
Article 5c
Discrepancies between the name and payment account identifier of a payee incase of instant credit transfers
1. With regard to instant credit transfers, a payer’s PSP shall verify whether thepayment account identifier and the name of the payee provided by the payer match.
Where they do not match, that PSP shall notify the payer of any discrepancies
detected and the degree of any such discrepancy.

EN

19

EN

PSPs shall provide that service immediately after the payer provided to its PSP thepayment account identifier of the payee and the name of the payee, and before thepayer is offered the possibility to authorise the instant credit transfer.
2. PSPs shall ensure that the detection and notification of a discrepancy as referred toin paragraph 1 does not prevent payers from authorising the instant credit transfer
concerned.
3. PSPs shall ensure that PSUs have the right to opt out from receiving the service
referred to in paragraph 1 and shall inform their PSUs of the means to express such
opt-out right.
PSPs shall also ensure that PSUs that opted out from receiving the service referred toin paragraph 1, have the right to opt in to receive that service.
4. PSPs shall inform their PSUs that authorising a transaction despite a detected andnotified discrepancy or opting out from receiving the service referred to inparagraph 1 may lead to transferring the funds to a payment account not held by the
payee indicated by the payer. PSPs shall provide that information at the same time as
the notification of discrepancies referred to in paragraph 1 or when PSU opts out
from receiving the service referred to in that paragraph.
5. The service referred to in paragraph 1 shall be provided to the payer regardless of
the PSU interface used by the payer to place a payment order for an instant credit
transfer.
6. PSPs located in a Member State whose currency is the euro shall comply with this
Article by …[ PO please insert the date = 12 months after the date of entry into forceof this Regulation].
PSPs located in a Member State whose currency is not the euro shall comply withthis Article by …[ PO please insert the date = 36 months after the date of entry into
force of this Regulation].
Article 5d
Screening of PSUs with regard to Union sanctions in case of instant credit
transfers
1. PSPs executing instant credit transfers shall verify whether any of their PSUs arelisted persons or entities.
PSPs shall carry out such verifications immediately after the entry into force of any
new or amended restrictive measures adopted in accordance with Article 215 TFEU
providing for asset freeze or prohibition of making funds or economic resources
available , and at least once every calendar day.
2. During the execution of an instant credit transfer, the payer’s PSP and the payee’s
PSP involved in the execution of such transfer shall not verify whether the payer or
the payee whose payment accounts are used for the execution of that instant credit
transfer are listed persons or entities in addition to carrying out verifications underparagraph 1.
3. A PSP that has failed to carry out the verifications referred to in paragraph 1 andexecutes an instant credit transfer causing another PSP involved in the execution ofthat instant credit transaction to fail to freeze assets of listed persons or entities, or to
make funds or economic resources available to such persons or entities, shall

EN

20

EN

compensate the financial damage caused to the other PSP resulting from penalties
imposed on that other PSP under restrictive measures adopted in accordance with
Article 215 TFEU providing for asset freeze or prohibition of making funds or
economic resources available .
4. PSPs shall comply with this Article by …[ PO please insert the date = 6 months
after the date of entry into force of this Regulation].’(3)

in Article 11, the following paragraphs 1a and 1b are inserted:‘1a. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, Member States shall by … [PO please
insert the date = 4 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation] lay
down rules on the penalties applicable to infringements of Articles 5a to 5d and shalltake all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Such penalties shallbe effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and measures by … [ POplease insert the = 8 months after the date of entry into force] and shall notify it
without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
1b. With respect to penalties applicable to infringements of Article 5d, Member
States shall ensure that such penalties include:(a)in the case of a legal person, administrative fines of up to not less than 10 % of
the total annual net turnover of that legal person in the preceding business year;(b)in the case of a natural person, administrative fines of up to not less than
EUR 5 000 000, or in the Member States whose currency is not the euro, thecorresponding value in the national currency on …[PO please insert the date ofentry into force of this Regulation].

For the purposes of point (a), where the legal person is a subsidiary of a parent
undertaking as defined in Article 2, point (9), of Directive 2013/34/EU of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council*2 or any undertaking which effectively
exercises a dominant influence over that legal person, the relevant turnover shall be
the turnover resulting from the consolidated accounts of the ultimate parent
undertaking in the preceding business year.
______________________________________________________________________*2

Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on theannual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain typesof undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19).’.

Article 2
Amendment to Regulation (EU) 2021/1230
In Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2021/1230, the following paragraph 5 is added:‘5. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply where Article 5b(1) of Regulation (EU)No 260/2012 would require a payment service provider located in a Member State
whose currency is not the euro, with respect to an instant credit transfer, to levy acharge which would be lower than the charge which would be levied, with respect tothe same transfer, if paragraph 1 of this Article were to be applied.

EN

21

EN

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, an instant credit transfer means an instantcredit transfer as defined in Article 2, point (1a) of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012
that is cross-border and in euro.’
Article 3
Entry into force
This Regulation shall enter into force the twentieth day following that of its publication in the
Official Journal of the European Union.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament
The President

EN

For the Council
The President

22EN