--- title: "EBA Q&A 2025_7673 — Q&A — Supervisory obligations of NCAs under Article [Rejected question]" shortTitle: "EBA Q&A 2025_7673 — Q&A — Supervisory obligations of NCAs under Article [Rejected question]" answer_id: EBA_QA_2025_7673 status: "Rejected question" type: qa instrument_type: qa authority: EBA binding: false binding_character: non_binding legal_status: withdrawn regulation: "PSD2" psd2_level3: true mica_level2: false legal_basis: "PSD2" date: 11 May 2026 source_link: https://www.eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa/qna/view/publicId/2025_7673 lifecycle: "Rejected question" text_version: "EBA Q&A register, 11 May 2026" source_url: "https://www.eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa/qna/view/publicId/2025_7673" check_status: matched verified: true last_checked: 2026-10-26 checked_against: "the EBA publication" source: prepared_by: "not stated in the document" published_by: "EBA" published_in: "EBA Single Rulebook Q&A tool" evidence: prepared_by: "Other" locator: "EBA Q&A register entry 2025_7673: no answer; the register names only the 'Type of submitter'" document_type: "qa_question" legal_nature: "not_legislation" addressees: "not stated in the document" dates: published_on: "2026-05-11" question_submitted_on: "2025-12-23" locators: published_on: "EBA Q&A register entry 2025_7673, field 'Rejected publishing date'" question_submitted_on: "EBA Q&A register entry 2025_7673, field 'Submission date'" lifecycle_label: "Rejected question" --- **Question published in the EBA Q&A tool · no answer · not legislation · published 11 May 2026 [Rejected question]** *Rejected question · EBA Q&A register, 11 May 2026 · Checked against the EBA publication on 26 Oct 2026 · [Official source](https://www.eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa/qna/view/publicId/2025_7673)* | | | |---|---| | **Full title** | EBA Q&A 2025_7673 — Q&A — Supervisory obligations of NCAs under Article \[Rejected question\] | | **Prepared by** | Not stated in the document | | **Published by** | EBA, in the EBA Single Rulebook Q&A tool | | **Reference** | EBA_QA_2025_7673 | | **Document type** | Q&A | | **Legal nature** | No answer · not legislation | | **Addressees** | Not stated in the document | | **Dates** | Published 11 May 2026; question submitted 23 December 2025 | | **Legal basis** | PSD2 | | **Related instruments** | None recorded | | **Text on this page** | Word for word — the full text of the EBA publication | **Supervisory obligations of NCAs under Article 32(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389** ### Question Article 32(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 states that competent authorities shall monitor the interfaces, the indicators and subject them to stress testing. We are seeking clarification on the interpretation of this provision. In particular, we would appreciate guidance on the EBA’s expectations regarding the scope and nature of NCAs’ monitoring of these interfaces, including the assessment of their operational performance and reliability, as well as the conduct of stress tests, to ensure that the requirements of Article 32(1),that dedicated interfaces shall maintain the same level of availability and performance as the ASPSP’s own online channels, are effectively met. ### Background Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/389 establishes specific requirements for the availability, performance and support of dedicated interfaces provided by ASPSPs to PISPs and AISPs. Article 30 sets out the general obligations for access interfaces, while Article 32(1) requires that dedicated interfaces provide, at all times, the same level of availability and performance, including support, as the interfaces made available by the ASPSP to its payment service users for direct access to their payment accounts online. Article 32(2) further provides that ASPSPs shall define transparent key performance indicators and service level targets for dedicated interfaces, and that competent authorities shall monitor these interfaces, indicators and objectives, and subject them to stress testing. This provision indicates that competent authorities are expected to oversee the operational performance and reliability of payment initiation service interfaces, in line with the objectives of PSD2 and the RTS. In practice, supervisory approaches may differ, and in some cases the monitoring of dedicated interfaces may rely primarily on periodic assessments or on issues identified through specific incidents or complaints. This highlights the importance of clarifying the scope and nature of the monitoring obligation under Article 32(2), in order to ensure that the performance requirements set out in Article 32(1) are effectively met. In addition, the EBA has provided further guidance in its Opinion on obstacles underArticle 32(3) RTS on SCA&CSC, clarifying that competent authorities are expected to take these clarifications into account when supervising ASPSPs’ compliance with PSD2 and the RTS. In particular, EBA advises competent authorities to pay close attention to the customer journey in redirection-based approaches and to take appropriate actions to ensure that any obstacles identified are removed by ASPSPs without undue delay. *** ### Answer This question has been rejected because EBA guidance or clarification is not needed. The question has already been addressed in Guidelines 2 and 4 of the EBA Guidelines on the exemption from the contingency mechanism (EBA/GL/2018/07). *** **Source:** [EBA original document](https://www.eba.europa.eu/single-rule-book-qa/qna/view/publicId/2025_7673)