Skip to main content

AI Summary of Article 90 Liability in the case of payment initiation services for non-execution, defective or late execution of payment transactions

Where a payer initiates a payment order through a payment initiation service provider (PISP), the account servicing payment service provider (ASPSP) shall, without prejudice to Article 71 and Article 88(2) and (3), refund the payer the amount of any non‑executed or defective payment transaction and, where applicable, restore the debited payment account to the state it would have been in had the defective transaction not taken place.

The burden is on the PISP to prove that the payment order was received by the ASPSP in accordance with Article 78 and that, within its sphere of competence, the transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded and not affected by a technical breakdown or other deficiency linked to non‑execution, defective or late execution. If the PISP is liable for non‑execution, defective or late execution, it shall immediately compensate the ASPSP on request for losses incurred or sums paid as a result of the refund to the payer.

Version status: Entered into force | Document consolidation status: Updated to reflect all known changes
Version date: 12 January 2016 - onwards
Version 2 of 2

Article 90 Liability in the case of payment initiation services for non-execution, defective or late execution of payment transactions

1. Where a payment order is initiated by the payer through a payment initiation service provider, the account servicing payment service provider shall, without prejudice to Article 71 and Article 88(2) and (3), refund to the payer the amount of the non-executed or defective payment transaction and, where applicable, restore the debited payment account to the state in which it would have been had the defective payment transaction not taken place.

The burden shall be on the payment initiation service provider to prove that the payment order was received by the payer's account servicing payment service provider in accordance with Article 78 and that within its sphere of competence the payment transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded and not affected by a technical breakdown or other deficiency linked to the non-execution, defective or late execution of the transaction.