EN
27.4.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 146/27
— The EESC has also doubted whether the IBAN check is a purely optional service to which the consumer has to opt-in for each transaction or for all its transactions.
In some situations (e.g. a mobile payment) it can be very complicated to manage and can also worsen the service convenience for the payer — he or she would be compelled to make a decision each time when the credit transfer is initiated and unnecessarily click more times than needed. — The EESC would like the IBAN check not to be limited to IPs but also extended to classic credit transfers until they are provided by PSPs. — EMIs and PIs are for the time being excluded from the scope of this regulation.
This exemption should be withdrawn once these institutions are granted access to payment systems, after the modification of the Settlement Finality Directive.
Non-bank PSPs should be covered by the regulation as long as their offer of payment services includes operating a payment account and execution of credit transfers.
Until that date, it is necessary to clarify how IBAN check and liability rules are applied when these third parties are used to initiate IPs. 4.2.
The EESC is of the opinion that for the success of IPs in the EU the reachability of service for European consumers and businesses is crucial.
Therefore, the more PSPs will start offering IPs, the more successful IP in the EU will become.
Thus, the EESC supports the idea to allow EMIs and PIs to participate in payments systems as direct participants and also sees potential in expanding the EC’s proposal on IPs to the EU seven non-euro Member States which are part of the Single European Market.
4.3.
The EESC considers that, in addition to the proposed regulation, the European Commission should:
— enable customers to be notified by instant electronic notification, when a mismatch is detected between the payee’s name and IBAN or any other identifier used, as supplied by the payer.
This service must be mandatory and without specific fee; — ensure that when a mismatch is detected during the IBAN check processing by the receiving bank, then this bank informs the sending bank of the situation.
Thus, the sending bank informs its consumer of this mismatch and the payment transaction is suspended; — ensure that when a mismatch is detected and the consumer decides nevertheless to confirm the IP, it is completely clear to the consumer that if they have not indicated the right beneficiary the sending bank is no longer responsible if the beneficiary is not the right one; — propose targeted measures to improve the fight against fraud as IBAN will only affect the authorized push payments (APP).
This can be done in coordination with the development of the Request to Pay Scheme set up by the European Payment Council which is also the manager of the SCT Instant Payment scheme.
5.
Sanctions 5.1.
A very high proportion of cross-border payments in euro are unjustifiably rejected by PSPs due to problems in verifying the application of penalties.
The public authorities responsible for enforcing sanctions provide PSPs with information on the companies subject to sanctions by virtue of control or ownership.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for public authorities in different countries to have different interpretations of the criteria or the reasons for a change of ownership and to give different opinions on the application of sanctions to such undertakings.
As a result, a company may be sanctioned in one country but not in another.
Therefore, it would be important to: a) include and explain in the regulation provisions to ensure the uniform application of EU law: — how PSPs operating in several countries should assess such situations and what steps PSPs should take; — how such information will be shared within the EU; — how the issue of compensation for damages will be dealt with in such cases.