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
Date: 2022-10-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: capital movement, electronic banking, electronic money, euro, financial legislation, financial services, innovation, intra-EU payment, payment system, provision of services

EN 

  EN 

   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}  
 
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 the 
year.  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  are 
locked 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 for 
banks 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  to 
reduce  the  currently  high  level  of  concentration  in  the  PoI  market,  in  particular  for  cross-
border 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  IPs3.  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  international 
role of the euro’4, the Commission supported a fully integrated IP market in the EU, to reduce 
risks 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 
20216, 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 and 
financial system: fostering openness, strength and resilience’7, the Commission reiterated the 
importance  of  its  retail  payments  strategy  and  of  digital  innovation  in  finance  as  a  way  of 
strengthening  the  single  market  for  financial  services  and  thereby  reinforcing  its  open 

1 

2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

A PSP is a provider of payment services as defined in Annex I to Directive 2015/2366 (PSD2), such as a 
credit 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 and 
coordination 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. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
strategic  autonomy 
the  macro-economic  and  financial  fields.  Subsequently, 
Commission included an initiative on IPs in the Commission work programme for 20228. 

in 

the 

The Council, in  its Conclusions of 5 April 20229,  referred to  the Commission’s intention to 
present a legislative initiative on  IPs, recalling the objective of fostering the development of 
competitive  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  the 
request  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 were 
effectively 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  the 
internal market (PSD2)11 and the Regulation on cross-border payments12, 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 in 
the 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  for 
domestic  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 in 
place  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 the 
robustness of AML/CFT checks. In particular, the instantaneity of these payments, within less 
than 10 seconds, does not  affect  in  any  way the obligation from obliged entities to  perform 
their 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) and 
are therefore covered by the present proposal. Nor does this proposal affect in any manner the 

8 
9 
10 

11 

12 

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  cross-
border payments in the Union (codification). 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
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  the 
Commission’s digital finance strategy for the EU13, 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 international 
role  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 and 
of 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  a 
possible 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  the 
Commission work programme for 2023. 

The full deployment of IPs is one of the main elements of the retail payments strategy16 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 the 
legal  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 of 
fraud  or  errors.  In  addition,  SEPA  for  non-instant  credit  transfers  and  direct  debits  was 
established 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  the 
requirement to offer IPs in euro. The SEPA Regulation already excludes payment transactions 

13 
14 
15 
16 

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   

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                 
carried  out  between  and  within  PSPs,  including  their  agents  or  branches,  for  their  own 
account.  Furthermore,  payment  institutions17  and  electronic  money  institutions18  are  not 
covered  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 light 
of 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 services 
of 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  is 
appropriate for the present proposal to amend that Regulation. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EVALUATIONS, 

EX POST 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation 

On  23 November 2017,  the  Commission  presented  a  report  on  the  functioning  of  the  SEPA 
Regulation  in  accordance  with  Article 15  of  the  Regulation20.  The  report  concluded  that, 
overall, the SEPA Regulation was being correctly applied across the EU and that there was no 
need for a follow-up legislative proposal. 

However, since IPs did not exist when the SEPA Regulation was adopted in 2012, it did not 
contain specific provisions  on this new category  of  credit  transfers  in euro.  Adding specific 
provisions  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: 

– 

– 

– 

17 
18 
19 

20 
21 
22 
23 

a  public  consultation  to  inform  the  Commission’s  retail  payments  strategy  (RPS), 
open from 3 April to 26 June 202021; 

a  public  consultation  on  the  inception  impact  assessment  for  the  present  initiative, 
open from 10 March to 7 April 202122; 
an open public consultation, open from 31 March to 23 June 202123; 

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/public-
consultation_en 

EN 

4 

  EN 

                                                 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

a  targeted  consultation  of  the  payments  industry,  open  from  24 March  to 
12 June 202124; 

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  the 
Commission’s; 

a webinar on the potential benefits of IPs for consumers and businesses, given by the 
Commission's  Directorate‑General  for  Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services  and 
Capital Markets Union on 10 June 202125; 

consultations  of  Member  States’  experts  in  the  Commission  Expert  Group  on 
banking  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: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

24 

25 

26 

evidence supplied through the various consultations listed above; 

a study carried out by a contractor, Fidelis Consulting, ‘IPs, Current and foreseeable 
benefits’, delivered in 202126; 

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, through 
targeted consultations and bilateral contacts; 

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

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

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/events/webinar-exploring-potential-instant-payments-eu-consumers-and-
businesses-2021-06-10_en   
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/735d5b9d-0c5e-11ec-adb1-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-228471178 

EN 

5 

  EN 

                                                 
 
Impact assessment 

• 
This  proposal  is  accompanied  by  an  impact  assessment27,  which  was  submitted  to  the 
Regulatory  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  two 
consequences of this problem: 

– 

– 

unrealised benefits and efficiency gains from IPs, both at macro level and for specific 
categories  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-border 
transactions. 

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 a 
mismatch  is  detected  between  the  payee’s  name  and  international  bank  account 
number (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  to 
euro 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 of 

27 

Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2022) 546. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

                                                 
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  non-
instant 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  the 
prospect 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 will 
accrue  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 not 
available 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 initiatives28. 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  specific 
reporting 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 to 
more than offset adjustment costs generated by the other components of this proposal, giving 
negative adjustment costs (i.e. savings) for the initiative overall29.  

• 

Fundamental rights 

The initiative is consistent with fundamental rights. 

28 

29 

Administrative  costs  are  defined  as  “costs  borne  by  businesses,  citizens,  civil  society  organisations  and 
public  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 

EN 

7 

  EN 

                                                 
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  and 
payment 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  such 
verifications. The initiative ensures that any personal data to carry out such verifications are 
adequate, 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  be 
synthesised 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  and 
specifies which PSPs must comply with these provisions. 

Four new definitions are introduced: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

30 

‘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 the 
present  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 

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

EN 

8 

  EN 

                                                 
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  individual 
transaction) 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 and 
receiving  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 to 
business days only. Payment institutions and electronic money institutions are excluded from 
this 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)  of 
Regulation (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 the 
same  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-instant 
credit 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 a 
lower level than a corresponding regular cross-border euro credit transfer, even if this means 
that 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  with 
respect 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 of 
sending 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  of 
sanctions  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 services32. 

PSPs are required to verify at least once a day whether any of their customers are designated 
persons or entities subject to EU sanctions, and in any event immediately after the entry into 
force of any new or amended designations. 

31 

32 

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-eu-
financial-sanctions?locale=en   

EN 

10 

  EN 

                                                 
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 the 
responsibility 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 in 
their 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 Committee33, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank34, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

33 
34 
35 

Regulation  (EU)  No  260/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council35 
provides  the  foundation  for  the  single  euro  payments  area  (SEPA).  To  create 
favourable conditions for increased competition, in particular for payments at point of 
interaction  (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. 

In 2017, a Union-wide scheme for the instant execution of credit transfers in euro was 
agreed between payment service providers (PSPs) under the auspices of the European 
Payments  Council.  The  efforts  of  the  European  payments  industry  have  not  proven 
sufficient  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. 

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 the 

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  and 
amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009 (OJ L 94, 30.3.2012, p. 22). 

EN 

12 

  EN 

                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

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

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

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 to 
process 
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’. 

in  euro,  payment 

instant  credit 

transfers 

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  such 
transactions.  Currently,  at  least  one  third  of  PSPs  in  the  Union  do  not  offer  instant 
credit  transfers  in  euro.  Moreover,  the  rate  at  which  PSPs  have  been  adding  instant 
credit  transfers  to  their  services  has  been,  over  the  last  few  years,  too  slow,  which 
hinders further integration of the Union’s internal payments market. Therefore, PSPs 
should be required to offer the service of sending and receiving instant credit transfers 
in euro. 

To  create  an  integrated  market  for  instant  credit  transfers  in  euro,  it  is  essential  that 
such  transactions  are  processed  in  accordance  with  a  common  set  of  rules  and 
requirements.  An  instant  credit  transfer  in  euro  enables  funds  to  be  credited  to  the 
account  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  the 
specific  conditions  that  they  should  meet  regarding  the  time  of  receipt  of    payment 
orders, processing, crediting and value dating.  

There is a variety of interfaces through which PSUs can place a payment order for a 
credit  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  have 
access to instant credit transfers in euro, there should be no difference in terms of the 
interfaces through which PSUs can place payment orders for instant and other types of 
credit  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  a 
payment  system  designated  in  accordance  with  Directive  98/26/EC  of  the  European 

EN 

13 

  EN 

Parliament  and  of  the  Council36.  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  instant 
credit 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  instant 
credit 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 the 
attainment  of  the  critical  mass  of  instant  credit  transfers  in  euro  that  is  necessary  to 
realise 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 per 
transaction  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  the 
payment,  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 account 
identifier which does not correspond to an account held by that payee. Under Directive 
(EU)  2015/2366  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council37,  the  only 
determinant of the correct execution of the transaction with respect to the payee is the 
unique  identifier,  and  PSPs  are  not  required  to  verify  the  name  of  the  payee.  In  the 
case  of  instant  credit  transfers,  there  is  not  enough  time  for  the  payer  to  realise  the 
occurrence of a fraud or error and to try to recover the funds before they are credited to 
the  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 the 
payer,  and  notify  the  payer  placing  a  payment  order  for  an  instant  credit  transfer  in 
euro about any such discrepancies detected. To avoid undue frictions or delays in the 
processing  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  the 
intended 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 make 
an instant credit transfer may increase the likelihood of a discrepancy being detected 
by the PSP, including the presence of diacritics or different possible transliterations of 
names  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 

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). 

EN 

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 the 
degree of such discrepancy, including by indicating in the notification that there is ‘no 
match’ or ‘close match’. 

(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 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  (listed  persons  or  entities).  Union  law,  however, 
does not lay down rules on the procedure or tools to be used by PSPs to ensure their 
compliance  with  those  obligations.  PSPs  thus  apply  various  methods,  based  on  their 
individual  choice  or  on  the  guidance  provided  by  the  national  authorities  concerned. 
The  practice  of  complying  with  obligations  stemming  from  Union  sanctions  by 
screening 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 such 
flagged  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 no 
longer apply transaction-based screening.  

(15)  To prevent the initiation of instant credit transfers from payment accounts belonging to 
listed 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 failure 
of 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 by 
that PSP. 

EN 

15 

  EN 

(17)  The  infringements  of  this  Regulation  should  be  subject  to  penalties,  imposed  by  the 
competent  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 in 
particular appropriate to harmonise across the Union the minimum levels for penalties 
for  the  infringement  by  PSPs  of  their  obligations  to  verify  whether  their  PSUs  are 
listed persons or entities. 

(18)  PSPs  need  sufficient  time  to  meet  the  obligations  laid  down  in  this  Regulation.  It  is 
therefore appropriate to  introduce those obligations  gradually, allowing PSPs a more 
efficient  use of their resources.  The obligation to  offer the service of  sending instant 
credit  transfers  should  therefore  apply  later,  preceded  by  the  obligation  to  offer  the 
service 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  the 
name  and  payment  account  identifier  of  the  payee  to  the  payer  is  only  relevant  for 
PSPs  offering  the  service  of  sending  instant  credit  transfers.  The  obligation  to  offer 
that  service  should  therefore  apply  from  the  same  time  as  the  obligation  to  offer  the 
service  of  sending  instant  credit  transfers.  The  obligations  related  to  charges  and 
harmonised  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 instant 
credit  transfers  in  euro,  the  obligations  laid  down  in  this  Regulation  should  apply  to 
such PSPs as of a later date than to PSPs located in Member States whose currency is 
the  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 the 
Council38, 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 of 
that 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  cross-
border 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 cross-
border  instant  credit  transfers  in  euro  would  be  higher  than  charges  for  cross-border 
non-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  to 
payers  and  payees  for  cross-border  instant  credit  transfers  in  euro  do  not  exceed  the 
charges 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 

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

EN 

16 

  EN 

                                                 
(21)  Any processing of personal data in the context of providing instant credit transfers, or 
the  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  Council39.  Processing  of  the  names  and  the  payment  account 
identifiers  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  the 
overall  uptake  of  instant  credit  transfers  in  euro,  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by 
Member  States  because  they  cannot  impose  obligations  on  PSPs  located  in  other 
Member 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 of 
proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not  go beyond what is 
necessary 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 Council40 
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  the 

following conditions:  

(a) 

the time of receipt of the payment order for such credit transfer is 
the moment when the payer instructs his or her PSP to execute that 
credit transfer, regardless of the day or hour; 

(b) 

the payment order for such credit transfer is immediately processed 
by the payer’s PSP, regardless of the day or hour;  

39 

40 

41 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data. 
Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2018  on  the 
protection  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. […]. 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
                                                 
(c) 

(d) 

the  payee’s  payment  account 
the  amount 
transferred  within  10  seconds  after  the  time  of  receipt  of  the 
payment order; 

is  credited  with 

the  credit  value  date  for  the  payee’s  payment  account  is  the  same 
date as the date on which the payee’s payment account is credited 
with 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 
including  online  banking,  mobile  banking 
application,  automated  teller  machine,  or  in  any  other  way  on  the 
premises of the PSP; 

transfer, 

(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  or 
entities 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 

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).’; 

(b)  point (22) is replaced by the following: 

‘(22)  ‘retail  payment  system’  means  a  payment  system  the  main  purpose  of 
which 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  the 
requirements set out in Article 5, comply with the following requirements: 

(a) 

they  shall  ensure  that  payers  are  able  to  place  a  payment  order  for  an  instant 
credit  transfer  through  the  same  PSU  interfaces  as  the  ones  through  which 
those payers can place a payment order for other credit transfers; 

EN 

18 

  EN 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

after  receiving  a  payment  order  for  an  instant  credit  transfer,  they  shall 
immediately  verify  whether  all  the  necessary  conditions  for  processing  the 
payment  are  met  and  whether  the  necessary  funds  are  available,  reserve  the 
amount on the account of the payer and instantly send the payment transaction 
to the payee’s PSP; 

they  shall  ensure  that  all  payment  accounts  they  maintain  are  reachable  for 
instant credit transfers 24 hours a day and on any calendar day; 

after having received an instant credit transfer, they shall immediately make the 
amount of that transaction available on the payee’s payment account. 

3. When providing instant credit transfers in euro, PSPs shall offer to their PSUs the 
possibility  to  submit  multiple  payment  orders  as  a  package  if  they  offer  that 
possibility 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 transfers 
in euro by … [PO please insert the date = 6 months after the date of entry into force 
of 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  this 
Regulation]. 

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  this 
Regulation],  and  the  service  of  sending  instant  credit  transfers  in  euro  by  …[  PO 
please  insert  the  date  =  36  months  after  the  date  of  entry  into  force  of  this 
Regulation]. 

Article 5b 

Charges in respect of instant credit transfers 

1.  Any  charges  applied  by  a  PSP  on  payers  and  payees  in  respect  of  sending  and 
receiving  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 force 
of this Regulation].  

PSPs  located  in  a  Member  State  whose  currency  is  not  the  euro  shall  comply  with 
this 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 in 
case of instant credit transfers 

1.  With  regard  to  instant  credit  transfers,  a  payer’s  PSP  shall  verify  whether  the 
payment 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 the 
payment  account  identifier  of  the  payee  and  the  name  of  the  payee,  and  before  the 
payer is offered the possibility to authorise the instant credit transfer. 

2. PSPs shall ensure that the detection and notification of a discrepancy as referred to 
in  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 to 
in 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 and 
notified  discrepancy  or  opting  out  from  receiving  the  service  referred  to  in 
paragraph 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 force 
of this Regulation]. 

PSPs  located  in  a  Member  State  whose  currency  is  not  the  euro  shall  comply  with 
this 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 are 
listed 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  under 
paragraph 1. 

3. A PSP that has failed to carry out the verifications referred to in paragraph 1 and 
executes an instant credit transfer causing another PSP involved in the execution of 
that 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 shall 
take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Such penalties shall 
be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.  

Member States shall notify the Commission of those rules and measures by … [ PO 
please  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) 

(b) 

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;  

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,  the 
corresponding value in the national currency on …[PO please insert the date of 
entry 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  the 
European  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  the 
annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types 
of 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  a 
charge which would be lower than the charge which would be levied, with respect to 
the 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 instant 
credit  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 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

22 

  EN