EBA · 2021_5763 Final Q&A

Obstacle to the provision of payment initiation and account information services

Regulation
Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2)
Article
Article 98
Topic
Strong customer authentication and common and secure communication (incl. access)
Submitted by
Competent authority
Submitted
2021-03-04
Answered
2021-04-23
Answer provided by
ESAs (EBA, ESMA, EIOPA)
Browse PSD2 Register → More Q&As on this regulation →

Question

Should Article 32.3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389, read together with paragraphs 33 to 41 of the Opinion of the European Banking Authority on obstacles under Article 32(3) of the RTS on SCA and CSC, be interpreted so as to consider that interface implementations that require, in a redirection approach, Payment Initiation Services Providers (PISPs) to always transmit the payer’s IBAN to initiate a payment order, are an obstacle to the provision of payment initiation services because the payment service user is required to manually enter their IBAN while in the PISP’s domain? Should Article 32.3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389 be interpreted identically where the interface implementations require Account Information Service Providers (AISPs) to always transmit the IBAN(s) of the account(s) to be accessed, therefore requiring the payment service user to manually enter their IBAN(s) while in the AISP’s domain?

Background

The European Banking Authority clarified in paragraph 34 of its Opinion on obstacles to the provision of third party provider services under PSD2, EBA/Op/2020/10, of 4 June 2020 that interface implementations that, in a redirection approach, require Payment Service Users (PSUs) to manually input their IBAN into the Account Servicing Payment Service Provider (ASPSP)’s domain in order to be able to use AISPs/PISPs services, are an obstacle. There are ASPSPs that are of the view that paragraphs 33 to 41 of this EBA Opinion cannot be construed as prohibiting interface implementations that require Third Party Providers (TPPs) to provide the IBAN for either or both AIS or PIS purposes. These ASPSPs are of the view that such interface implementations, which cause both PISPs and AISPs to have to request manual IBAN entry from PSUs into their own domain, do not create an obstacle within the meaning of Article 32.3 of Regulation (EU) 2018/389. The EBA should clarify the existence or inexistence of an obstacle for Payment Initiation Services (PIS) and Account Information Services (AIS) journeys separately.

Answer

Directive 2015/2366/EU (PSD2) and the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 do not require payment service users (PSUs) to enter the international bank account number (IBAN) manually into the domain of payment initiation service providers (PISPs) or account information service providers (AISPs) when executing a payment initiation service or an account information service respectively. Article 32(3) of the Delegated Regulation prescribes that ‘account servicing payment service providers that have put in place a dedicated interface shall ensure that this interface does not create obstacles to the provision of payment initiation and account information services’. Q&A 2019_4854 clarified that account servicing payment service providers (ASPSPs) ‘should not reject the requests received from PISPs in a redirection or decoupled approach, simply because the PISP has not transmitted to the ASPSP the relevant account details’. In accordance with the requirement of Article 36(1)(a) of the Delegated Regulation and the clarification provided in paragraph 34 of the EBA Opinion on obstacles under Article 32(3) of the RTS on SCA and CSC (EBA/OP/2020/10) , the same principle applies to the provision of account information services. Accordingly, ASPSPs should not reject the requests received from AISPs simply because the AISP has not transmitted to the ASPSP the relevant account details.

Original source: European Banking Authority, Q&A ID 2021_5763

This Q&A is published by European Banking Authority and is non-binding. It does not constitute legal advice. Updated weekly from official ESA sources.

Similar Q&As

Account Data required by a ASPSP to execute a payment order via a PISP

Answered 2021-03-05

Change of TPP access rights for AIS consent by the PSU prior to authorisation

Answered 2022-10-14

Authentication process of the PSU with the ASPSP in a combined AIS and PIS journey in a redirection approach

Answered 2025-10-03

Scope of “additional registrations” as obstacles in the sense of Article 32(3) Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389

Answered 2021-12-17

Eligibility of communication by AISPs with ASPSP throughout two access interfaces in parallel

Answered 2024-03-22

More Q&As on this topic

Definition of "equivalent authentication procedure" for journeys initiated from a mobile application

Answered 2026-06-12

Obstacle assessment of a mandatory client segment selection screen in a redirection journey

Answered 2026-06-12

Clarification of the scope of the term "authentication procedures" in the context of the RTS and the EBA Opinion on obstacles

Answered 2026-06-12

SCA exception for Contactless only terminals (SoftPOS) in case of emergency

Answered 2025-10-03

the use of strong and widely recognized encryption techniques

Answered 2025-10-03

📋 Track EU financial regulation continuously

Forseti monitors EU financial regulation and delivers personalised alerts anchored to verified official sources.

Start free trial → Learn more

14-day free trial. No credit card required.