+ All Categories
Home > Documents > SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC...

SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC...

Date post: 06-Jul-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
182
SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public Consultation EPC001-20 / Version 1.0 / Date issued: 12 March 2020
Transcript
Page 1: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 50

SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public Consultation

EPC001-20 / Version 1.0 / Date issued: 12 March 2020

Page 2: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public Consultation 2020 Change Requests for SCT Rulebook

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 50

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

EPC001-20 Version 1.0 Date issued: 12 March 2020

The Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) payment schemes, as set out in the SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT), the SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (SCT Inst), the SEPA Direct Debit Core (SDD Core) and the SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business (SDD B2B) rulebooks, evolve based on a transparent change management process adhered to by the European Payments Council (EPC). For details on the principles governing the EPC scheme change management process, we refer to sections 5, 6 and 7 in this document and the sources listed at the end of this page. This SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document (document EPC001-20) details change requests for possible modifications to be introduced into the next version of the SCT rulebook. This public consultation document builds on change requests submitted by stakeholder representatives, banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document offers the analyses and recommendations of the EPC Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG) on the way forward with regard to individual change requests. A summary overview of the change requests and related recommendations by the SEMWG are provided in section 0 of this Change Request Public Consultation Document. The EPC submits the SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document for public consultation. The public consultation takes place between 12 March and 09 June 2020. All scheme participants and stakeholders are encouraged to provide feedback on the possible changes to be introduced into the next version of the SCT rulebook by completing the response template EPC005-20 and send it to [email protected] by 09 June 2020 at 17h00 CET at the latest. The EPC will not consider any feedback received after this deadline. Proposed changes detailed in this SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document, which are broadly accepted by all scheme participants and stakeholders, and that are technically and legally feasible, will be taken forward, after approval by the Scheme Management Board (the EPC decision-making body in charge of the schemes’ administration and evolution). Others will not be retained. The updated version of the SCT rulebook will be published in November 2020 for implementation in November 2021. In accordance with industry best practice, payment service providers and their suppliers have a one-year lead time to address rulebook updates prior to such updates taking effect. More information about the maintenance and the evolution of the SCT scheme is available in Chapter 4 of the Scheme Management Internal Rules (The Internal Rules) being a binding Annex to the current applicable SCT rulebook. It should be noted that the EPC is under the legal obligation to ensure compliance of the SCT rulebook with existing EU legislations or to any new EU legislation impacting the SCT rulebook. Therefore, the EPC reserves the right to make necessary changes to the SCT rulebook at all times in order to ensure that the SCT rulebook does comply with changes to existing EU legislation or with the entry into force of any new EU legislation.

Page 3: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Please refer to Annex 1 for the original detailed change requests. This document contains only a summary of each individual change request.

Page 4: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary: Major Change Requests to the SCT Rulebook 8

1.1 EPC Approach 8

1.2 Overview of Change Requests and Proposed Way Forward for Consideration by Respondents to the Public Consultation 10

1.3 Overview of Changes to Align the Next Version of the SCT Rulebook with any Existing EU Legislation and with the Entry into Force of New EU Legislation 13

2 Detailed Analysis of Major Change Requests to the SCT Rulebook 14

2.1 # 2: Integrate a process diagram for inquiries 14

2.1.1 Description 14

2.1.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 14

2.1.3 Rulebook impact 14

2.2 # 4: Multiple Requests for a Status Update in a single message for RFRO 15

2.2.1 Description 15

2.2.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 15

2.2.3 Rulebook impact 15

2.3 # 5: Multiple Requests for a Status Update in a single message for a SCT inquiry 16

2.3.1 Description 16

2.3.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 16

2.3.3 Rulebook impact 16

2.4 # 6: Update calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA 17

2.4.1 Description 17

2.4.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 17

2.4.3 Rulebook impact 17

2.5 # 7: Replacement of references to EONIA into €STR 18

2.5.1 Description 18

2.5.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 18

2.5.3 Rulebook impact 18

2.6 # 8: Change request has been withdrawn 19

2.6.1 Description 19

2.7 # 9: Reference to separate EPC guidance document on SCT r-transaction reason codes 20

2.7.1 Description 20

2.7.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 20

2.7.3 Rulebook impact 20

2.8 # 10: Alignment of the Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT rulebook, and between both SCT rulebooks 21

2.8.1 Description 21

Page 5: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.8.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 21

2.8.3 Rulebook impact 21

2.9 # 11: Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure 22

2.9.1 Description 22

2.9.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 22

2.9.3 Rulebook impact 22

2.10 # 12: Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day 23

2.10.1 Description 23

2.10.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 23

2.10.3 Rulebook impact 23

2.11 # 14: Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT Inquiry procedure 24

2.11.1 Description 24

2.11.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 24

2.11.3 Rulebook impact 24

2.12 # 16: Alignment of all attribute numbers across all rulebooks 25

2.12.1 Description 25

2.12.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 25

2.12.3 Rulebook impact 25

2.13 # 20: Migration to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard 26

2.13.1 Description 26

2.13.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 27

2.13.3 Rulebook impact 27

2.14 # 23: Inclusion of flowcharts for the RFRO procedure 28

2.14.1 Description 28

2.14.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 28

2.14.3 Rulebook impact 28

2.15 # 26: Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure 29

2.15.1 Description 29

2.15.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 29

2.15.3 Rulebook impact 29

2.16 # 27: Linking an SCT transaction with a preceding Request-To-Pay message 30

2.16.1 Description 30

2.16.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 30

2.16.3 Rulebook impact 30

2.17 # 28: Notification to Beneficiary Bank about the execution of SCT instruction after a processed Request-To-Pay message 31

2.17.1 Description 31

2.17.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 31

2.17.3 Rulebook impact 31

Page 6: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 6 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.18 # 32: Allow the transfer back of a lower amount as a positive response to a Recall due to fraud 32

2.18.1 Description 32

2.18.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 32

2.18.3 Rulebook impact 32

2.19 # 33: Possibility to credit a technical account following a positive response to a Recall 33

2.19.1 Description 33

2.19.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 33

2.19.3 Rulebook impact 33

2.20 # 34: Extension of the period to submit a Recall 34

2.20.1 Description 34

2.20.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 34

2.20.3 Rulebook impact 34

2.21 # 35: Align the rulebook with the Funds Transfer Regulation 35

2.21.1 Description 35

2.21.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 35

2.21.3 Rulebook impact 35

2.22 # 39: Transmission of alias or proxy details about Originator and Beneficiary 36

2.22.1 Description 36

2.22.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 36

2.22.3 Rulebook impact 36

2.23 # 40: ERI option to support pointers or references to external sources 37

2.23.1 Description 37

2.23.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 37

2.23.3 Rulebook impact 37

2.24 # 43: Replacement of the term Bank with PSP and updated Customer definition 38

2.24.1 Description 38

2.24.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 38

2.24.3 Rulebook impact 38

2.25 # 44: Changes to Recall and SCT Inquiry procedures 39

2.25.1 Description 39

2.25.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation 39

2.25.3 Rulebook impact 39

2.26 # 46: Change request has been withdrawn 40

2.26.1 Description 40

2.27 # 47: Change request has been withdrawn 41

2.27.1 Description 41

3 Changes Pertaining to the Impact of the SEPA Regulation or any Other EU Legislation 42

Page 7: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 7 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

4 Detailed Analysis of Minor Changes to the SCT Rulebook 45

4.1 Change Requests 45

5 Principles Governing the Change Management Cycle 46

5.1 Change Request Public Consultation Document 46

5.2 Structure of the Change Request Public Consultation Document 46

6 Change Management Cycle in respect of Major Change Requests 47

6.1 Consideration of Change Requests 47

6.2 Change Request Public Consultation Document 47

6.3 SEMWG Recommendations 47

6.4 Public Consultation on the Change Requests 47

6.5 Next Steps 47

6.6 Further Information 48

7 Change Management Cycle in respect of Minor Change Requests 49

7.1 Publication of List of Minor Change Requests 49

7.2 Comments on the Minor Change Requests 49

7.3 Submission of the List of Minor Change Requests to the SMB 49

Annex 1 – Original Change Requests 50

Page 8: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 8 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

1 Executive Summary: Major Change Requests to the SCT Rulebook

1.1 EPC Approach

The principles governing the evolution of the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) payment schemes as set out in the SEPA Credit Transfer (SCT) and SEPA Direct Debit (SDD) rulebooks are detailed in the ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (the Internal Rules). These Internal Rules are available for download on the European Payments Council (EPC) Website. Sections 5, 6 and 7 in this SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document detail the application of the Internal Rules in the EPC scheme change management process. The Internal Rules make a difference between so called major and minor changes to the EPC rulebooks. A major change is a change that affects or proposes to alter the substance of the rulebooks and the schemes. Any change to chapters 5 and 6 of the rulebooks is always considered a major change. A minor change is a change of an uncontroversial and usually technical nature that facilitates the comprehension and use of the rulebooks. This executive summary of the SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document highlights change requests for major changes to the SCT rulebook received in this scheme change management cycle. Change requests for minor changes to the SCT rulebook are set out in section 0 of this Change Request Public Consultation Document. All change requests to the SCT rulebook are submitted for public consultation between 12 March and 09 June 2020. Information on how to share feedback with the EPC is included on the cover page of this Change Request Public Consultation Document. The EPC received 27 change requests for major changes to be introduced into the SCT rulebook. The change requests submitted to the EPC are included in Annex 1 to this document. A first change request is to migrate all ISO 20022 XML-based messages under the rulebook to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard in November 2022. Another change request suggests aligning all attribute numbers across all four EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks in November 2022. A few change requests point out the need to replace the calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA into another calculation method. Another change request points out that there is a need to align the rulebook with the EU Funds Transfer Regulation. A group of change requests suggests changes to the inquiry procedure being in force since November 2019. These changes range from: • The inclusion of extra interbank rules; • Detailed inquiry procedure diagrams; • The concrete payment of fees or interest compensation based on a dedicated ISO 20022

message; • The possibility to make multiple requests for a status update in a single message. Some change requests propose features that can link an SCT transaction with a preceding Request-To-Pay (RTP) message or notify to the Beneficiary about the execution of SCT instruction after a processed RTP message. Several proposals have been made to change the r-transaction procedures Recall and Request For Recall by the Originator (RFRO). These proposals are among others: • New r-transaction reasons;

Page 9: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 9 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

• Inclusion of extra procedure diagrams; • The extension of the period to submit such r-transaction procedures; • The alignment of the Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT rulebook and between the SCT

and SCT Inst rulebooks; • The possibility to make multiple requests for a status update in a single message; • A formal rulebook reference to a separate EPC guidance document on SCT r-transaction reason

codes; • Allow the transfer back of a lower amount as a positive response to a Recall due to fraud; • Possibility to credit a technical account following a positive response to a Recall. Several change requests propose terminology changes in the rulebook: an updated definition of the term ‘Banking Business Day’, the replacement of the term ‘Bank’ with ‘PSP’ and an updated definition of the term ‘Customer’. A further contribution is the inclusion of two optional attributes to transmit alias or proxy details about the Originator and the Beneficiary through the interbank space. Another change request proposes that the Extended Remittance Information (ERI) option supports pointers or references to external sources in the payment message. All change requests to the SCT rulebook received were reviewed by the EPC Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG). These change requests include the recommendation of the SEMWG regarding each of these change requests unless the SEMWG is not able to provide a recommendation for the public consultation. Each recommendation reflects one of the options detailed in items a) through f) below: a) The change request is already provided for in the scheme: no action is necessary for the EPC. b) The change request should be incorporated into the scheme: the change request would

become part of the scheme and the rulebook would be amended accordingly. c) The change request should be included in the scheme as an optional feature:

• The new feature is optional and the rulebook would be amended accordingly; • Each scheme participant1 may decide to offer the feature to its customers, or not.

d) The change request is not considered fit for SEPA wide use and could be handled as an additional optional service (AOS) by interested communities: • The proposed new feature would not be included in the rulebook or in the implementation

guidelines released by the EPC with regard to the rulebook; • The development of AOS is out of scope of the EPC. The EPC does however publish declared

AOS arrangements on its website for information; • The EPC may consider the inclusion of AOS arrangements, if supported by enough

communities, in a future version of the rulebook. e) The change request cannot be part of the existing scheme for one of the following reasons:

• It is technically impossible; • It is not feasible (explained on a case by case basis); • It is out of scope of the EPC;

1 A scheme participant is a payment service provider which has formally adhered to an EPC SEPA payment scheme.

Page 10: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 10 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

• It does not comply with the SEPA Regulation2 or any other relevant EU legislation. f) The change request may be considered for the development of a new scheme:

• The change request reflects major changes which cannot be integrated into an existing scheme;

• To develop the change request further, i.e. to develop a new scheme, the following requirements must be met: o The benefits of the new scheme for payment end users are demonstrated prior to the

launch of the development phase; o It is demonstrated that enough stakeholders will make use of the new scheme; o A cost-benefit analysis is provided; o It complies with the SEPA Regulation or any other relevant Regulation.

1.2 Overview of Change Requests and Proposed Way Forward for Consideration by Respondents to the Public Consultation

The below table lists all the received change requests which are submitted for public consultation. The SEMWG has issued a recommendation on the way forward about each change request. The reasons underlying each recommendation are detailed in section 2. The final decision whether a change request will be incorporated into the rulebook is however subject to the outcome of the public consultation. The contributors to this public consultation are requested to indicate whether they agree with the recommendation of the SEMWG on the way forward. In case the contributors do not agree with the SEMWG recommendation, they are requested to indicate in the comments section of the response template EPC005-20 their preferred way forward (e.g., support of the original change request, selecting another option). Furthermore, any additional comments are welcome in the comments section.

Change Request

item Topic Contributor

Recommendation of the SEMWG on the proposed

way forward. The final decision is subject

to the outcome of the public consultation.

2 Integrate a process diagram for inquiries

BMW Bank GmbH Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

4 Multiple Requests for a Status Update in a single message for RFRO

HSBC Already provided for in the scheme – option a

5 Multiple Requests for a Status Update in a single message for a SCT inquiry

HSBC Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

2 Regulation (EU) No 260/2012 establishing technical and business requirements for credit transfers and direct debits in euro and amending Regulation (EC) No 924/2009

Page 11: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 11 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Change Request

item Topic Contributor

Recommendation of the SEMWG on the proposed

way forward. The final decision is subject

to the outcome of the public consultation.

6 Update calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA

KPMG France Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

7 Replacement of references to EONIA into €STR

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

8 Change request has been withdrawn

EPC SEMWG Withdrawn

9 Reference to separate EPC guidance document on SCT r-transaction reason codes

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

10 Alignment of the Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT rulebook, and between both SCT rulebooks

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

11 Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

12 Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

14 Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT Inquiry procedure

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

16 Alignment of all attribute numbers across all EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme as of November 2022 - option b

20 Migration to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme as of November 2022 - option b

23 Inclusion of flowcharts for the RFRO procedure

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

26 Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure

EPC SEMWG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

27 Linking an SCT transaction with a preceding Request-To-Pay message

EPC RTP MSG No SEMWG recommendation defined

Page 12: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 12 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Change Request

item Topic Contributor

Recommendation of the SEMWG on the proposed

way forward. The final decision is subject

to the outcome of the public consultation.

28 Notification to Beneficiary Bank about the execution of SCT instruction after a processed Request-To-Pay message

EPC RTP MSG No SEMWG recommendation defined

32 Allow the transfer back of a lower amount as a positive response to a Recall due to fraud

French Banking Federation

Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

33 Possibility to credit a technical account following a positive response to a Recall

French Banking Federation

Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

34 Extension of the period to submit a Recall

French Banking Federation

Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

35 Align the rulebook with the Funds Transfer Regulation

Banking & Payments Federation Ireland

Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

39 Transmission of alias or proxy details about Originator and Beneficiary

Nordic Payments Council

Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

40 ERI option to support pointers or references to external sources

Nordic Payments Council

Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

43 Replacement of the term Bank with PSP and updated Customer definition

EPC LSG Should be incorporated into the scheme - option b

44 Changes to Recall and SCT Inquiry procedures

BITS Cannot be part of the existing scheme - option e

46 Change request has been withdrawn

EPC legal adviser Withdrawn

47 Change request has been withdrawn

EPC legal adviser Withdrawn

Page 13: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 13 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

1.3 Overview of Changes to Align the Next Version of the SCT Rulebook with any Existing EU Legislation and with the Entry into Force of New EU Legislation

The contributors to this public consultation are welcome to comment on these changes. Ref. Topic Contributor Way forward

01 Re-arrangement of the list of non-EEA SEPA authorisation references in the rulebooks

EPC LSG See chapter 3 of this document.

Page 14: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 14 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2 Detailed Analysis of Major Change Requests to the SCT Rulebook

2.1 # 2: Integrate a process diagram for inquiries

2.1.1 Description

This change request was made by BMW Bank GmbH.

The contributor proposes that the SCT rulebook contains a diagram about SCT inquiries documenting the flow of claim-non-receipt and its associated followers (positive result of investigation, negative result of investigation, request for status update).

Such diagram should also document the same for claim for value date correction but with an additional documentation of the flow of an interest compensation payment.

2.1.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021. The SEMWG submits the item # 14 in the section 2.11 which includes among others such diagram.

2.1.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will only impact the rulebook.

Page 15: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 15 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.2 # 4: Multiple Requests for a Status Update in a single message for RFRO

2.2.1 Description

This change request was made by HSBC. The contributor points out that in the interbank space, it could be useful to allow several Requests for Status Update in a same message. This is currently possible for Recalls only. The contributor proposes that the structure “Transaction Information” also allows several transactions for Requests for Status Update for the Request For Recall by the Originator (RFRO) procedure, reducing consequently the number of files.

2.2.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The change request is already provided for in the scheme via the interbank implementation guidelines. No further action is necessary for the EPC apart of extra clarification to be added in the rulebook.

2.2.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 16: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 16 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.3 # 5: Multiple Requests for a Status Update in a single message for a SCT inquiry

2.3.1 Description

This change request was made by HSBC. The contributor points out that in the interbank space, it could be useful to allow several Requests for Status Update in a same message. This is currently possible for Recalls only. The contributor proposes that the structure “Transaction Information” also allows several transactions for Requests for Status Update for the SCT inquiry procedure, reducing consequently the number of files.

2.3.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.3.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 17: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 17 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.4 # 6: Update calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA

2.4.1 Description

This change request was made by KPMG France. It highlights that the discontinuation of EONIA is planned for 03 January 2022. The suggestion is to switch EONIA with the €STR rate.

2.4.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021. The SEMWG proposes the item # 7 in section 2.5 which covers the same topic in more detail.

2.4.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will only impact the rulebook.

Page 18: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 18 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.5 # 7: Replacement of references to EONIA into €STR

2.5.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. The private sector working group on euro risk-free rates for which the ECB provides the secretariat, formally recommended through a press release on 14 March 2019 that market participants gradually replace EONIA with the euro short-term rate (€STR) for all products and contracts, making the €STR their standard reference rate. The market transition from EONIA to the €STR would last until end 2021. The SCT rulebook contains references to the EONIA rate. The change request outlines concrete changes in the SCT rulebook to reflect the transition to €STR.

2.5.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021. The item # 6 in section 2.4 covers the same topic.

2.5.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will only impact the rulebook.

Page 19: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 19 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.6 # 8: Change request has been withdrawn

2.6.1 Description

This change request has been withdrawn.

Page 20: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 20 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.7 # 9: Reference to separate EPC guidance document on SCT r-transaction reason codes

2.7.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG.

Since 2018, the SCT scheme related document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions’ (EPC 135-18) is published on the EPC website.

Various SCT scheme participants highlight the usefulness of this document. It eases the correct use of the various SCT R-transaction reason codes. The suggestion is that:

• The SCT rulebook formally refers to the document EPC 135-18; • The SCT scheme participants better monitor the correct use of the SCT r-transaction reason

codes as described in this document and adjust, where necessary, their internal processes.

The SEMWG points out that such a reference to a similar document is included in the two SDD scheme rulebooks since November 2017.

2.7.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.7.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will only impact the rulebook.

Page 21: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 21 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.8 # 10: Alignment of the Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT rulebook, and between both SCT rulebooks

2.8.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. A comparison has been done of the contents between the following datasets within the SCT rulebook and between the two SCT rulebooks:

• The ‘Recall’ datasets (DS-05 in both rulebooks) • The ‘Answer to Recall’ datasets (DS-06 in both rulebooks) • The ‘Request for Recall by the Originator’ (RFRO) datasets (DS-07 in the SCT rulebook and DS-08

in the SCT Inst rulebook respectively) • The ‘Response to the RFRO’ datasets (DS-08 in the SCT rulebook and DS-09 in the SCT Inst

rulebook respectively) • The ‘Recall’ and the ‘RFRO’ datasets within each SCT rulebook • The ‘Answer to Recall’ and the ‘Response to the RFRO’ datasets within each SCT rulebook

The aim of this change request is to harmonise as much as possible the attributes in the datasets for the Recall and the RFRO processes within the SCT rulebook and between the two SCT rulebooks. Furthermore, the change request proposes an additional business rule in the SCT rulebook attribute AT-57 reflecting the PSD2 principle that PSPs must assist their customers when the latter want to take further actions to recover their funds in case of the reason code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’. However, the attribute will remain technically ‘optional’.

2.8.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.8.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 22: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 22 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.9 # 11: Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

2.9.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. The SCT rulebook prescribes that the Originator Bank can initiate the Recall procedure in case of a fraudulent originated SCT instruction. However, the use of the Recall procedure has a limited timespan i.e. the Originator Bank must send out the Recall within the period of ten Banking Business Days following the execution date of the initial SCT transaction subject to the Recall. It may well happen that the Originator only detects a fraudulent SCT instruction and/or escalates this fraud to the Originator Bank after this first period of ten days has passed. The suggestion is that a Recall request can be done up to 13 months following the execution date of the initial SCT transaction. The extension of this timeline for a Recall request applies only for the reason code ‘Fraud’, the current ten Banking Business Days continue to apply for the reasons ‘Technical reason’ and ‘Duplicate’.

2.9.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.9.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 23: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 23 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.10 # 12: Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day

2.10.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. The two SCT rulebooks apply somewhat different definitions for ‘Banking Business Day’. Although the two SCT scheme rulebooks represent two stand-alone schemes, the suggestion is to align such definitions as best as possible.

2.10.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.10.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will only impact the rulebook.

Page 24: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 24 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.11 # 14: Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT Inquiry procedure

2.11.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. In the run-up to the 17 November 2019 go-live date of the SCT inquiry procedure, the EPC received several clarification requests on how correctly interpret this new procedure. In May 2019, the EPC published the version 1.4 of the Clarification Paper on SEPA Credit Transfer and SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Scheme Rulebooks providing further clarifications and schematic workflows in sections 3.2 and 3.3. With this change request, the SEMWG proposes to include the clarifications and workflows relevant for the SCT scheme rulebook in the 2021 rulebook version.

2.11.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.11.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 25: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 25 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.12 # 16: Alignment of all attribute numbers across all rulebooks

2.12.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. Each SEPA payment scheme rulebook describes a range of attributes (ATs) which compose a dataset to be used to execute a certain rulebook process. Under each rulebook, each AT has a unique sequence number. However, many AT descriptions are identical or similar in all four rulebooks but they all bear a different unique sequence number in each rulebook. The proposal is to align the sequence number of these ATs between the four rulebooks. This suggestion also includes the grouping of ATs and their subsequent sequence numbering into different AT sequence number categories. Each such category has its own sequence number structure. Persons in charge of the implementation and maintenance of the SEPA usage rules in the customer-to-bank (C2B) and interbank systems, will get the same understanding about each AT sequence number in the SEPA usage rules of all C2B and interbank implementation guidelines (IGs). It also helps the EPC in its future management of the AT sequence numbering. The SEMWG understands that such renumbering can impact individual scheme participants and payment end-users. They can use the current AT numbering in e.g., their technical implementation documentation and in technical and business processes. As this change concerns a format change but not a change to any functional or business rules, the SEMWG proposes to isolate the implementation of this change from the other accepted changes for the 2021 EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks. The SEMWG proposes to implement this change in November 2022.

2.12.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2022 at the same time when the migration to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard (# 20) is proposed.

2.12.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook, the C2B and interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 26: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 26 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.13 # 20: Migration to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

2.13.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG.

For the launch of the various EPC SEPA payment schemes in January 2008, November 2009 and November 2017, the EPC selected the 2009 version of the ISO 20022 XML-based messaging standard. The EPC notes new payment market developments for which the 2009 version of the ISO standard is not suitable to support.

Furthermore, throughout the years, the EPC SEPA payment schemes cover already a variety of ISO 20022 versions for messages between these payment schemes. If the future rulebooks would include new business procedures or existing procedures could be amended or extended, messages based on a more recent ISO 20022 version may have to be used adding further variety.

The EPC proposes to migrate the four schemes to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard as it is suitable to support new payment features and to align all current rulebook messages on one and the same ISO 20022 version.

The EPC notes the decision by several market infrastructures to migrate to the ISO 20022 standard i.e. Target2 from Eurosystem and EURO1 from EBA Clearing by November 2021 and the global migration of SWIFT from its FIN messages to the ISO 20022 standard starting from November 2021 until November 2025. These infrastructures have decided to use the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard.

However, the EPC proposes to migrate the four schemes as of November 2022 to the 2019 version. This migration date allows the EPC SEPA payment scheme participants to spread the workload. Otherwise, they would have to change three (possibly four) different payment systems or platforms by November 2021.

Subject to a positive public consultation outcome on this change request, the EPC will formally communicate this ISO version migration in November 2020 when publishing the 2021 EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks and the related Implementation Guidelines (IGs).

The IGs published in November 2020 will still be predominantly3 based on the 2009 version of ISO 20022 and will be applicable from November 2021 to November 2022. A second set of 2021 IGs will be published latest in the second quarter of 2021. This second cluster of the mandatory C2B and interbank IGs will then be based on the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard.

The ISO version migration will be a big-bang migration, i.e. no transitional period will be foreseen. This means that all EPC SEPA payment scheme participants offering ISO 20022 message-based payment services to their customers, must then support the 2019 version as of November 2022.

On the other hand, the (corporate) customers may still use another ISO version to exchange SEPA transactions in an XML format with their PSPs if so bilaterally agreed.

The annex of the change request covers a high-level gap analysis between the 2009 and the 2019 pain., pacs. and camt. messages used in the four EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks.

3 Some messages described in the IGs are based on a more recent version of ISO 20022.

Page 27: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 27 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.13.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2022 at the same time when the alignment of all attribute numbers across all rulebooks (# 16) is proposed.

2.13.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the C2B and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 28: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 28 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.14 # 23: Inclusion of flowcharts for the RFRO procedure

2.14.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. The suggestion is to add flowcharts to explain in a schematic way the procedural steps to be followed by the Originator Bank and the Beneficiary Bank when they receive a Request for Recall by the Originator (RFRO). This change request does not cover any concrete changes to the procedural steps themselves.

2.14.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.14.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact only the rulebook.

Page 29: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 29 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.15 # 26: Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure

2.15.1 Description

This change request was made by the SEMWG. Under the section 4.4.1, the SCT rulebook allows the Beneficiary Bank to receive interest compensation when the cause for an SCT inquiry “Claim for Value Date Correction” does not lie within the responsibility of the Beneficiary Bank. Furthermore, the section 4.4.2 allows the Beneficiary Bank to charge a fee to the Originator Bank for handling the SCT inquiry (irrespective if it is a “Claim for Value Date Correction” or “Claim of Non-Receipt”). However, the SCT rulebook does not specify how the payment of such SCT inquiry fees and/or interest compensation must be settled between the Originator bank and the Beneficiary Bank. The proposal is to introduce a new dataset that relies on the ISO 20022 message pacs.008 (FIToFICustomerCreditTransfer). It allows the SCT scheme participants to settle SCT inquiry-related fees and interest compensation amounts in a uniform way across SEPA. The SEMWG proposes to use the 2009 version of the pacs.008 message. The proposed pacs.008 message will settle the SCT inquiry fees and/or interest compensation for a single SCT inquiry case only. This allows the concerned SCT scheme participants to do an item-per-item reconciliation between a fee and/or interest compensation payment and the concerned SCT inquiry case. In case this change request is retained for inclusion in the 2021 SCT rulebook, the DS-11 can be applied only for SCT inquiry cases with a Creation Date and Time earliest as of 21 November 2021.

2.15.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.15.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 30: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 30 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.16 # 27: Linking an SCT transaction with a preceding Request-To-Pay message

2.16.1 Description

This change request was made by the EPC Request-to-Pay Multi-stakeholder Group (RTP MSG). The change request aims to link an SCT instruction and transaction with a preceding Request-To-Pay (RTP) message. The intention is to base the RTP message under the RTP scheme on the ISO 20022 message pain.013.001.07 (CreditorPaymentActivationRequest). The Creditor sending party sends the RTP message to the Debtor receiving party. The successful transmission of the RTP message will trigger an SCT instruction from the Debtor (Originator under the SCT scheme) to the Creditor (Beneficiary under the SCT scheme). The parties that create and further process the SCT instruction need to make a distinction between an SCT instruction resulting from the receipt and acceptance of an RTP message, and other SCT “standalone” instructions: • The Originator and the Originator Bank need to keep a trace of the preceding RTP message in

the SCT instruction to facilitate the retrieval of the commercial/purchase transaction for which the SCT payment is done;

• The Beneficiary and the Beneficiary Bank need to reconcile the RTP message sent with the SCT payment received. They can use a reference to the RTP message in the SCT transaction to distinguish RTP-initiated SCT transactions from other SCT transactions. This would limit the lookup into RTP data stores to the ones already identified as resulting from RTP messages.

The change request introduces a few modifications to the attributes AT-44 ‘The purpose of the SCT Instruction’, AT-41 ‘Originator reference of the SCT instruction’ and AT-45 ‘Category purpose of the SCT Instruction’.

2.16.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The EPC has decided to develop an RTP scheme rulebook for publication on the EPC website by November 2020. This RTP rulebook will consist of a set of rules, practices and standards that makes it possible for PSP and non-PSP entities to join, participate and operate in the RTP scheme. The RTP scheme will be based on the ISO 20022 standard, separate from the EPC SEPA payment schemes, covering a set of basic functions. The RTP scheme rulebook will be subject to a public consultation expected to place in the second quarter of 2020. In the absence of a formal publicly available EPC RTP scheme rulebook, the SEMWG has no recommendation about this change request for the public consultation. Instead, it is eager to know the views from the SCT scheme participants and other SCT stakeholders about this change request. The SEMWG will consider the outcome from the SCT public consultation about this change request, and the outcome from the public consultation on the RTP scheme rulebook to determine its position to the Scheme Management Board meeting in September 2020.

2.16.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook, the customer-to-bank and interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 31: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 31 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.17 # 28: Notification to Beneficiary Bank about the execution of SCT instruction after a processed Request-To-Pay message

2.17.1 Description

This change request was made by the EPC Request-to-Pay Multi-stakeholder Group (RTP MSG). The successful transmission of the Request-To-Pay (RTP) message triggers an SCT instruction from the Debtor (Originator under the SCT scheme) to the Creditor (Beneficiary under the SCT scheme). The proposal is a new notification message allowing the Originator Bank to inform in real-time the Beneficiary Bank (so indirectly the Beneficiary) that a payment instruction has been executed. This would support RTP use-cases requiring a level of certainty that the SCT payment has been successfully executed. In some cases – especially in online commerce – it would be enough to merchants to know that an SCT-based payment has been executed by the PSP of the consumer. The merchant could then kick off the business processes such as the delivery of goods or services.

2.17.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The EPC has decided to develop an RTP scheme rulebook for publication on the EPC website by November 2020. This RTP rulebook will consist of a set of rules, practices and standards that makes it possible for PSP and non-PSP entities to join, participate and operate in the RTP scheme. The RTP scheme will be based on the ISO 20022 standard, separate from the EPC SEPA payment schemes, covering a set of basic functions. The RTP scheme rulebook will be subject to a public consultation expected to place in the second quarter of 2020. In the absence of a formal publicly available EPC RTP scheme rulebook, the SEMWG has no recommendation about this change request for the public consultation. Instead, it is eager to know the views from the SCT scheme participants and other SCT stakeholders about this change request. The SEMWG will consider the outcome from the SCT public consultation about this change request, and the outcome from the public consultation on the RTP scheme rulebook to determine its position to the Scheme Management Board meeting in September 2020.

2.17.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 32: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 32 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.18 # 32: Allow the transfer back of a lower amount as a positive response to a Recall due to fraud

2.18.1 Description

This change request was made by the French Banking Federation. Under the current rulebook, a Beneficiary Bank wishing to respond positively to a Recall for the reason ‘Fraud’ will transfer back the amount of the original SCT transaction. When the funds available on the account of the Beneficiary are lower than the amount to be recalled, the contributor points out that the positive response cannot be sent (reference is made to AT-46). As a result, the legitimate request of the Originator Bank cannot be fulfilled. In such situation and depending on the fraud case at hand, some SCT scheme participants are not satisfied with a negative response. The contributor suggests allowing the Beneficiary Bank to send a positive response to a Recall for the reason ‘Fraud’ even though the actual amount it will transfer back is lower than the amount of the initial SCT transaction. In this way the Originator can still recover funds remaining on the account of the Beneficiary within the limit of the initial SCT transaction amount. The contributor explains that this proposal is driven by the need to act urgently in case of suspicion of fraud by the Beneficiary (i.e. before the expiration of the 15 Banking Business Days period to respond to such Recall). This proposed rule would apply only for a Recall with the reason code ‘Fraud’ and will be optional. A Beneficiary Bank would still have the possibility to respond negatively in such situation.

2.18.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). The general principle for each r-transaction is that the full original amount is always transferred back. This provides full clarity about the processing of the amount transferred back for both the Originator Bank and the Beneficiary Bank. However, to satisfy the need, the Beneficiary Bank is free to send back the available funds in a separate transaction (pacs.008 instead of pacs.004 Return).

2.18.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 33: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 33 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.19 # 33: Possibility to credit a technical account following a positive response to a Recall

2.19.1 Description

This change request was made by the French Banking Federation. The contributor points out that when the Beneficiary Bank report a positive answer to a Recall, the Originator Bank cannot credit an account other than the account of the Originator. The contributor suggests allowing the Originator Bank to credit a technical account of the Originator Bank – instead of the account of the Originator – in case the Originator Bank has already transferred back the recalled amount to the account of the Originator in accordance with PSD2. The contributor alludes to article 73 (1) of PSD2 : “….In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payer’s payment service provider refunds the payer the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction immediately, and in any event no later by the end of the following business day…”. As a result, a double credit of the Originator’s account would be avoided.

2.19.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). Each scheme participant can always decide to re-credit a positive response to a Recall another account than the account of the Originator in case the Originator has already been re-credited for that Recall request.

2.19.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 34: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 34 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.20 # 34: Extension of the period to submit a Recall

2.20.1 Description

This change request was made by the French Banking Federation. The Originator Bank and the Originator currently have ten Banking Business Days following the execution date of an SCT transaction to initiate a Recall. The contributor suggests lengthening this period up to 15 Banking Business Days as fraudulent, duplicate or erroneous SCT transactions mostly concern bulk payments, and thus can take more than ten Banking Business Days to handle. A longer period is particularly needed in case of fraud. A retail client usually requests to recall a SCT transaction once it has received its monthly statements and noticed a suspicious operation. After the current ten Banking Business Days, the contributor considers that it is not possible to fall back to the Request for Recall by the Originator (RFRO) procedure because the reasons for a Recall cannot be used for such RFRO request. The period for the Originator Bank to request a Recall, and the period for the Beneficiary Bank to answer to the Recall, would then be the same (15 Banking Business Days).

2.20.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). The SEMWG suggests another solution for the reported issue via its own change request # 11 (see section 2.9).

2.20.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 35: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 35 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.21 # 35: Align the rulebook with the Funds Transfer Regulation

2.21.1 Description

This change request was made by Banking & Payments Federation Ireland (BPFI). The contributor suggests aligning the rulebook with the derogations foreseen in the Regulation 2015/847/EU (Funds Transfer Regulation). This Regulation allows PSPs some derogations when they process SCT and SDD transactions and more specifically the derogations under Article 6 (2), linked to transactions up to € 1000, and article 8 (1), linked to the use of effective risk-based procedures. The background for this change request is the recent discussions that the Irish banking and payments industry has undertaken with its National Regulator during the Brexit preparations.

2.21.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). The current rules do not cause any new issues for scheme participants (which already include participants from non-EEA countries) and their customers as they are clear to understand. Otherwise, scheme participants would have to explain to their customers in which cases they have to or may not provide the address of the payer.

2.21.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 36: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 36 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.22 # 39: Transmission of alias or proxy details about Originator and Beneficiary

2.22.1 Description

This change request was made by Nordic Payments Council (NPC). The contributor suggests two new optional attributes “Alias or Proxy of the Originator’s account” and “Alias or Proxy of the Beneficiary’s account” in the datasets DS-01 (Customer-to-Bank SEPA Credit Transfer Information), DS-02 (Interbank Payment) and DS-04 (Bank-to-Customer SEPA Credit Transfer Information). The submission of proxies or aliases from the accounts of the Originator and of the Beneficiary through the interbank space give opportunities for enhanced services to customers.

2.22.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). This change request cannot be implemented in November 2021 as the 2009 ISO version standard does not support alias or proxy details. Adding optional attributes will also require all scheme participants to foresee and transfer these attributes in the C2B and interbank space.

2.22.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook, the customer-to-bank and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 37: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 37 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.23 # 40: ERI option to support pointers or references to external sources

2.23.1 Description

This change request was made by Nordic Payments Council (NPC). The SCT rulebook describes in Annex V the Extended Remittance Information (ERI) option which is in effect since November 2019. Under the current specifications, the model is to carry all ERI information within the payment message itself. The current ERI option does not support pointers/references to external sources of ERI information. The contributor points out that the society strives to get more data to support an even more automatic way of carrying out various business processes. It therefore suggests adding a reference to an external source (to avoid having a large payment message) in the payment message. The reference needs of course to be secure and manipulation-proof. Note: this change request only applies to those SCT scheme participants have adhered or intend to adhere to the ERI option.

2.23.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). It is concerned about legal, liability and security issues and the costs associated to it. Since the payment message only carries the information of the location of the ERI, the content and form of information is beyond any checking procedures of the involved scheme participants. Therefore, scheme participants should not be held responsible for any compliance-or liability sensitive contents stored in such locations. Furthermore, the EPC itself proposed a similar change request in a previous rulebook change management cycle. That change request received insufficient support from various stakeholders.

2.23.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the Annex V of the rulebook, and the ERI option specifications in the customer-to-bank and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 38: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 38 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.24 # 43: Replacement of the term Bank with PSP and updated Customer definition

2.24.1 Description

This change request was made by the EPC Legal Support Group (LSG). The suggestion is to replace the term “Bank” with the term “PSP” in all EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks to formally reflect the changes introduced by PSD2 to the categories of institutions that can offer payment services, and the variety in PSP categories that are eligible to adhere to the EPC SEPA payment schemes. This proposal will lead to term changes in the rulebooks, the related Implementation Guidelines and the various rulebook annexes (scheme options, risk management, internal rules). It also covers the inclusion of the definition “PSP” and the amendment of the term “Customer”.

2.24.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG suggests incorporating the change request into the scheme (option b) entering into effect as of November 2021.

2.24.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook, all rulebook annexes and the customer-to-bank and interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 39: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 39 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.25 # 44: Changes to Recall and SCT Inquiry procedures

2.25.1 Description

This change request was made by the Norwegian Banking Standardisation and Infrastructure Company (BITS). The first proposal from the contributor is that the time limits for the Recall procedures are set at five banking business days, both for the Originator Bank to send a Recall request, and for the Beneficiary Bank to respond to that Recall request. This gives a maximum time of 10 banking business for the Recall procedure to be completed. The chance for the funds to be withdrawn from the account of the Beneficiary increases with the current Recall procedure timelines of 10 banking business days (request) and 15 banking business days (response to the request), being a cycle of maximum 25 banking business days. The second suggestion from the contributor relates to the SCT inquiry procedure. The contributor points to issues related to claims, some inconsistency related to the use of references and the type of messages needed. It proposes a revision and clarification of the documentation and the processes.

2.25.2 SEMWG analysis and recommendation

The SEMWG recommends not taking forward the change request (option e). Technical reasons, fraud and duplicates should be resolved by the Originator Bank and the Beneficiary Bank as fast as possible by keeping the existing maximum timelines. Furthermore, the SEMWG suggests another solution for fraud via its own change request # 11 (see section 2.9). In addition, the Beneficiary Banks generally need to obtain first the consent from the Beneficiary which can take up some time. With respect to the SCT inquiries, the SEMWG refers to its own change request # 14 (see section 2.11).

2.25.3 Rulebook impact

If this change request is supported, this will impact the rulebook and the interbank implementation guidelines.

Page 40: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 40 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.26 # 46: Change request has been withdrawn

2.26.1 Description

This change request has been withdrawn.

Page 41: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 41 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

2.27 # 47: Change request has been withdrawn

2.27.1 Description

This change request has been withdrawn.

Page 42: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 42 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

3 Changes Pertaining to the Impact of the SEPA Regulation or any Other EU Legislation

As the EPC is under the legal obligation to ensure compliance of the rulebooks with the SEPA Regulation or of any other EU legislation, proposed changes to the rulebooks under this section are not subject to public consultation. They are included in this document for information but the contributors to this public consultation can comment on these changes. This change is qualified as “Change for Regulatory Reasons” within the meaning of Section 4.2.9 of the SMIRs, due to legal amendments that “necessitate the urgent alignment of the Schemes with such rules and regulations”:

Change Reason for change This change request leads to the following changes: Reorganisation of Section 5.4 – Eligibility for Participation (All Rulebooks)

The present change aims at updating the EPC SEPA Payment Schemes Rulebooks (along with the Schemes Adherence Guide and the SEPA Schemes Adherence Packages, namely the standard template for the Legal Opinion) with regards to the relevant authorisation and regulatory requirements for PSPs of non-EEA SEPA Countries, to which the geographical scope of the SEPA payment schemes has been extended. This update is triggered by the recent inclusion in the SEPA schemes’ geographical scope of:

i) Andorra (2018), and ii) the Vatican City State/Holy See (2019).

For which the following references will be added under Section 5.4: 8) An undertaking duly incorporated in the Andorran Financial System on December 21st, 1949, according to Andorran laws regulating the financial system, and specifically according to Law 7/2013, of 9 May 2013, on the legal regime of the operative entities of the Andorran financial system and other provisions regulating the exercise of financial activities in the Principality of Andorra, as amended from time to time” 9) An entity incorporated in the Vatican City State and Authorised by the Financial Information Authority in accordance with Regulation 1/2014” The exercise shall be repeated in due course also for UK’s PSPs, which will remain entirely subject to PSD2 only until the 31 December 2020 (i.e. for the whole duration of the transition period). Following the expiration of said period, UK will need to provide a suitable reference to the relevant UK legal acts covering the authorisation requirements of its PSPs, in accordance with the principle of the regulatory level playing field amongst SEPA scheme participants.

Page 43: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 43 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Change Reason for change However, it is hereby noted that the current list included under Section 5.4 of the Rulebooks, namely: “3) A bank which is authorised in accordance with Article 3 of the Federal Law on Banks and Savings Banks of 8 November 1934 by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA); 4) A bank which is authorised by the Central Bank of San Marino in accordance with Article 7, Part I, Title II, of the Sammarinese Law No. 165 (approved on November 17th, 2005) and with Regulation No. 07 of 2007; 5) An undertaking incorporated in Jersey and registered with the Jersey Financial Services Commission to conduct deposit-taking business under the Banking Business (Jersey) Law 1991; 6) An undertaking incorporated in Guernsey and registered with the Guernsey Financial Services Commission to conduct deposit-taking business under the Banking Supervision (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 1994; or 7) An undertaking incorporated in the Isle of Man and licensed by the Isle of Man Financial Services Authority to conduct deposit-taking business under the Isle of Man Financial Services Act 2008.” [+ 8) Andorra and 9) Vatican City State]

is likely to be subject to more frequent regulatory changes than the rest of the Rulebooks’ sections, being it triggered either by any change in the current authorisation framework for said institutions (as result, for example, of the continuous legal compliance exercise performed by the EPC) or by the inclusion in the SEPA schemes geographical scope of new non-EEA SEPA countries, such as the UK in the future. To this extent, in order to avoid frequent publications of the Rulebooks, which may ultimately generate confusion amongst Participants, and in order to maintain said section regularly updated, also in line with the Overseer requirements, it is hereby proposed a change of structure of Section 5.4, under the Rulebooks, as follows: “Applicants which fall within one of the following categories shall be deemed automatically to be eligible under this section: 1) A credit institution which is authorised in accordance with Article 8 (1) of Directive 2013/36/EU by a state which is a member of the European Economic Area; 2) The institutions referred to in points (2) to (23) of Article 2 (5) of Directive (EU) 2013/36/EU; 3) Institutions/entities/undertakings incorporated in a non-EEA country to which the SEPA schemes geographical scope has been extended, and authorised or licensed by the relevant Authority, in accordance with the provisions enclosed under the document EPC 409-09. By extracting from the Rulebooks the abovementioned current points 3) to 9), and including a new point 3), with the reference to the

Page 44: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 44 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Change Reason for change document EPC409-09 (“EPC list of countries and territories included in the SEPA Schemes’ geographical scope”) the EPC would achieve two results:

i) maintain a complete reference in the Rulebooks to the relevant authorisation requirements, covering both EEA and non-EEA SEPA countries, and

ii) optimise the current changes related to the regulatory level playing field of non-EEA SEPA scheme participants, without the need to amend – and publish, intermediary versions of the Rulebooks or wait for each Change Management Cycle to be able to reflect such changes.

It is recommended to qualify the present change as “Change for Regulatory Reasons” within the meaning of Section 4.2.9 of the SMIRs, due to legal amendments that “necessitate the urgent alignment of the Schemes with such rules and regulations”.

Page 45: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 45 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

4 Detailed Analysis of Minor Changes to the SCT Rulebook The SEMWG recommends supporting the following minor change requests:

4.1 Change Requests

Section Description Reason for change Type of Change

Entire rulebook

Alignment of the annex numbering for each EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebook: • Annex I – Adherence agreement • Annex II – SMIR • Annex III – Risk Management

(previously Annex IV) • Annex IV – RB amendments & changes

(previously Annex III)

This will also lead to changes in the Annex numbering references throughout each rulebook.

To apply the same numbering of the generic rulebook annexes across all rulebooks.

CHAN

Entire rulebook

Change ‘answer’ to a Recall or to an RFRO into a ‘response’ to a Recall or to an RFRO.

To apply an uniform terminology.

CLAR

1.6 Removal of the bullet point:

• Participants which have adhered to the Scheme may participate only through an EEA licensed branch unless they participate through their SEPA head office (which may be located in a SEPA country or territory outside the EEA)

This bullet point is redundant. The section 3.2.3.1 of the SMIRs and the section 3.5 of the document EPC012-17 Guide to the SEPA Schemes Adherence Process provide the complete adherence information.

CHAN

1.6 Removal of the bullet point: • The rules ensure that responsibility for

risk management is allocated to where the risk lies and that liability falls where the fault lies

This bullet point is redundant. Chapter 5 of each rulebook clearly specifies aspects with respect to risk management and refers to the Risk Management Annex which is an integral part of the rulebook.

CHAN

2.4 Add a reference to Request for Recall by the Originator in the first paragraph:

All transactions are in euro in all process stages, including all exception handling, i.e. Rejects, Returns, and Recalls and Requests for Recall by the Originator (RFRO).

To ensure that all r-transaction types are pointed out.

CLAR

Page 46: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 46 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

5 Principles Governing the Change Management Cycle

5.1 Change Request Public Consultation Document

This Change Request Public Consultation Document is submitted by the SEMWG in accordance with the procedures set out in the Internal Rules in respect of changes to the SCT rulebook.

5.2 Structure of the Change Request Public Consultation Document

Sections 2, 3 and 4 describe the changes to the SCT rulebook which are proposed in this Change Request Public Consultation Document. These change requests fall into three categories: • Section 2 covers innovative change requests to technical operations in chapters 3 and 4 of the

rulebook and other significant non-technical changes which fall within the definition of a major change;

• Section 3 covers change requests to align the SCT rulebook with the SEPA Regulation and any other EU legislation;

• Section 4 proposes changes to correct typing errors and provide additional clarification to the SCT rulebook. These changes consist of minor changes to the SCT rulebook which are uncontroversial in nature and do not affect technical operations.

Annex 1 contains all received original change requests for the 2020 SCT rulebook change management cycle.

Page 47: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 47 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

6 Change Management Cycle in respect of Major Change Requests

6.1 Consideration of Change Requests

In accordance with chapter 4.1.4 of the Internal Rules, a number of change requests with respect to the rulebooks have been submitted for consideration to the SEMWG. 27 of these are applicable to the SCT scheme. Following consideration of these change requests as required under chapter 4.1.6 of the Internal Rules, the SEMWG has determined: (a) that the change requests set out in section 2 and 3 meet the criteria for acceptance into the 2020 SCT rulebook change management cycle; and (b) that the change requests set out in section 0 constitute minor change requests invoking the procedures set out in Chapter 4.3 of the Internal Rules.

6.2 Change Request Public Consultation Document

The SEMWG is responsible for the preparation and development of a Change Request Public Consultation Document in respect of the major change requests referred to in section 2 above, and guiding the change requests through the rulebook change management cycle. The SEMWG has therefore formulated this Change Request Public Consultation Document under chapter 4.2 of the Internal Rules. This Change Request Public Consultation Document analyses the major changes which have been proposed and contains in Annex 1 the original change requests.

6.3 SEMWG Recommendations

The SEMWG is required under chapter 4.2.1 of the Internal Rules to issue a recommendation on the way forward with regard to each change request. The reasons underlying each recommendation are detailed in section 2. The final decision whether a change request will be incorporated into the SCT rulebook is however subject to the outcome of the public consultation. The contributors to this public consultation are requested to indicate whether they agree with the recommendation of the SEMWG on the way forward. In case the contributors do not agree with the SEMWG recommendation, they are requested to indicate their preferred way forward.

6.4 Public Consultation on the Change Requests

The EPC encourages all SEPA stakeholders to provide feedback during the public consultation. PSP communities are asked to consult all their members who are involved in the SCT scheme to ensure that the views of the payment services constituency are considered in the public consultation process. The SEMWG encourages the PSP communities to consult as wide a range of stakeholders as possible, including participants, end users and service suppliers. All stakeholders should provide feedback to the EPC on the Change Request Public Consultation Document by 09 June 2020 at 17h00 CET at the latest. The EPC will not consider any feedback received after this deadline.

6.5 Next Steps

Considering the comments received during the public consultation, the SEMWG will produce a Change Proposal Submission Document to the EPC Scheme Management Board (SMB) for decision-making purposes in accordance with section 4.2.5 of the Internal Rules, and to the EPC Stakeholder Forums (see section 4.4 of the Internal Rules), i.e. the Scheme End-User Forum (SEUF) and the EPC Scheme Technical Forum (ESTF), for their respective positions on the SEMWG Change Proposals.

Page 48: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 48 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Approved change requests will be incorporated into the version 1.0 of the 2021 SCT rulebook and published in November 2020 with the intention that they become effective in November 2021.

6.6 Further Information

The above is a summary of the change management process. If you would like further information, please refer to the Internal Rules or contact the EPC Secretariat.

Page 49: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 49 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

7 Change Management Cycle in respect of Minor Change Requests

7.1 Publication of List of Minor Change Requests

The SEMWG has identified certain minor change requests which they consider necessary for the SCT rulebook. The SEMWG is required under the Internal Rules to publish a list of minor change requests on the EPC website and to ensure that the list may be viewed by all stakeholders. This obligation shall be met by the publication of this Change Request Public Consultation Document, and in particular through the provision of section 0 noting certain change requests as 'minor'.

7.2 Comments on the Minor Change Requests

All stakeholders may submit comments on the list of minor change requests in this Change Request Public Consultation Document.

7.3 Submission of the List of Minor Change Requests to the SMB

The list of minor change requests shall be submitted to the SMB via the Change Proposal Submission Document in accordance with section 4.2.5 of the Internal Rules.

Page 50: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

www.epc-cep.eu 50 / 50

Public Consultation – 2020 Change Requests SCT Rulebook EPC001-20

Annex 1 – Original Change Requests

Page 51: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

TEMPLATE

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Responses by e-mail to: [email protected]

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Ralf Krahmer

Organisation: BMW Bank GmbH

Address: Heidemannstr. 164, D-80787 Munich

Contact details:

Email [email protected]

Phone +49 89 3184-4298

Your reference:

BMWCRSCT#001

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: ASAP

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 52: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

As soon as possible.

1.2 Description of the change request:

Integrate a process diagram for inquiries into the SCT rulebook.

The diagram shall document the flow of claim-non-receipt and its associated followers (positive result of investigation, negative result of investigation, request for status update).

Additionally the diagram shall document generally the same for claim for value date correction but with an additional documentation of the flow of an interest compensation payment.

Look-and-feel of other process flow diagrams like figure 4 (page 29) in the V1.0 2019 SCT rulebook are appreciated.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

None besides more documentation details

2. Impact on the interbank space:

None besides more clarity about the intended workflow

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

None

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

None

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Additional documentation details.

Depending on where the process flows will be integrated or isolated a change of an existing diagram can apply or a new diagram and its associated framework can apply-

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Page 53: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

3

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes (from BMW Bank’s perspective)

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes, it doesn’t impede interoperability

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes

Page 54: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

PUBLIC - Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88 Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Girish Chaudhary

Organisation: HSBC

Address: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, UK

Contact details:

Phone Int: 79930013 Ext: +44 207 9920013 Mobile +44 7468704975 Email [email protected]

Your reference:

Provision for multiple RfSU in a single message for RFRO

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date:

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 55: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#04 -SCT-HSBC- multiple Requests for a status update in a single message for RFRO 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

1.2 Description of the change request:

Change Request related to RFRO:

In the interbank space (and for SCT scheme only), it could be useful to allow several Requests for Status Update (RfSU) in a same message; this is currently possible for Recalls only. We would have liked the structure “Transaction Information” to also allow several transactions for Requests for Status Update for RFRO, reducing consequently the number of files.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

XML schema change expected.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

All banks will need to adhere to the updated schema. In terms of functionality it will be a positive impact as it can reduce the interbank traffic.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

SEPA Implementation Guidelines will need to be updated to reflect this CR.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

A Change. An element which allows max one transaction would be enhanced to have multiple transactions.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Page 56: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#04 -SCT-HSBC- multiple Requests for a status update in a single message for RFRO 3

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

If the change is implemented after Nov 2019 then it has to be released as a mandatory change in the next release or else it can have a breaking effect if not all organisation upgrade to the updated XML schema.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes

Page 57: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

PUBLIC - Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels

Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88 Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Girish Chaudhary

Organisation: HSBC

Address: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, UK

Contact details:

Phone Int: 79930013 Ext: +44 207 9920013 Mobile +44 7468704975 Email [email protected]

Your reference:

Provision for multiple RfSU in a single message for SCT Inquiry

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date:

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 58: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#05 -SCT-HSBC- multiple Requests for a status update in a single message for SCT inquiry 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

1.2 Description of the change request:

Change Request related to SCT Inquiry:

In the interbank space (and for SCT scheme only), it could be useful to allow several Requests for Status Update (RfSU) in a same message; this is currently possible for Recalls only. We would have liked the structure “Transaction Information” to also allow several transactions for Requests for Status Update for SCT Inquiries, reducing consequently the number of files.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

XML schema change expected.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

All banks will need to adhere to the updated schema. In terms of functionality it will be a positive impact as it can reduce the interbank traffic.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

SEPA Implementation Guidelines will need to be updated to reflect this CR.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

A Change. An element which allows max one transaction would be enhanced to have multiple transactions.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Page 59: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#05 -SCT-HSBC- multiple Requests for a status update in a single message for SCT inquiry 3

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

If the change is implemented after Nov 2019 then it has to be released as a mandatory change in the next release or else it can have a breaking effect if not all organisation upgrade to the updated XML schema.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes

Page 60: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Moaad Benjadi

Organisation: KPMG France

Address:

Contact details:

[email protected]

Your reference:

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: June 3rd 2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 61: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#06 -All schemes-KPMG France-update calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

October 2019

1.2 Description of the change request:

In the framework of IBOR transition, I think the use of EONIA as reference rate for the “Compensations” calculation (in both SCT and SDD Core schemes rulebooks) is to be reviewed / updated.

In fact, under ECB’s tracker solution, EONIA will be equal to €STR + Spread (8.5 bp one-off spread calculated and communicated by ECB) starting October 2nd 2019. It has been confirmed by the EMMI that the discontinuation of EONIA is planned for January 3rd 2022.

Is it possible to consider the above-mentioned points and give to banks and credit institutions the possibility to switch to €STR and anticipate the update of their local payment It systems.

Further information on €STR publication date/time and the value of one-off EONIA - €STR spread: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/initiatives/interest_rate_benchmarks/euro_short-term_rate/html/index.en.html

Further information on EONIA hybrid methodology and publication date/time communicated by the EMMI:

https://www.emmi-benchmarks.eu/assets/files/D0142-2019%20Feedback%20EONIA%20consultation%20RFR%20WG_final.pdf

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

SCT scheme rulebook: 4.4 Inquiry process / ii. Claim for Value Date Correction

SDD CORE scheme rulebook: PT-04.16 – Debtor Bank Sends Collection Refund Instructions to the CSM

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Discontinuation of EONIA starting January 3rd 2022.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

Page 62: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#06 -All schemes-KPMG France-update calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA 3

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one: replacement of EONIA by €STR starting January 2022

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Rule alongside an existing Rulebook element: to allow banks to make necessary arrangements to smoothly transition to €STR rate, SEPA could consider adding €STR starting October 2nd 2019 and keep EONIA until December 2021

Page 63: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#06 -All schemes-KPMG France-update calculation method of compensation currently based on EONIA 4

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

NA

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No. However I think the request is in line with both i). the recommendations of ECB Working Group on Euro risk free rates ii). the current EONIA - €STR transition works that are planned by banks

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

NA

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes, I do think so

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

No, I don’t think so

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes. By using EONIA as a reference rate for compensation amounts calculation, SEPA scheme are concerned by the market evolution impacting the IBORs transition (Publication of €STR as the new overnight reference rate and discontinuation of EONIA by the end of 2021)

Page 64: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 5

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 07 - Replacement of references to EONIA into €STR Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 65: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#07 -SCT and SDD Core-EPC-replacement of references to EONIA into ESTR

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 5

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT and SDD Core rulebooks.

1.2. Description of the change request: The private sector working group on euro risk-free rates for which the ECB provides the secretariat, formally recommended through a press release on 14 March 2019 that market participants gradually replace EONIA with the euro short-term rate (€STR) for all products and contracts, making the €STR their standard reference rate. The market transition from EONIA to the €STR would last until end 2021.

The SCT and SDD Core rulebooks contain references to the EONIA rate. The following concrete changes are proposed in the concerned rulebooks to reflect the transition to €STR:

A. 2019 SCT rulebook version 1.0 – section 4.4.1 SCT inquiry i. ii. Claim for Value Date Correction:

(..)This compensation is a variable amount, being the interest calculated for the number of calendar days between the original value date and the corrected value date of the original SEPA Credit Transfer. The rate to be applied for each day in a month is the €STR EONIA Rrate applicable on the first banking business day of that month based on a 360 days year. The €STREONIA Rrate is a daily rate published by the ECB every day.

ii. Chapter 7 Terms defined in the Rulebook

Addition of the following term:

€STR Rate Is a rate which reflects the wholesale euro unsecured overnight borrowing costs of euro area banks. The rate is published for each TARGET2 business day based on transactions conducted and settled on the previous day (reporting date T) with a maturity date of T+1 and which are deemed to be executed at arm’s length and thereby reflect market rates in an unbiased way.

B. 2019 SDD Core rulebook version 1.0

i. Section 4.6.4 Collection of the Direct Debit Transaction (PR-04)

PT-04.16 – Debtor Bank Sends Collection Refund Instructions to the CSM

(..) This compensation is a variable amount, being the interest calculated for the number of Calendar Days between the Settlement Date of the original Collection (Settlement Date is included in the number of days) and the Settlement Date of the Refund instruction by the CSM after presentation by the Debtor Bank (Settlement day is not included in the number of days). The rate

Page 66: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#07 -SCT and SDD Core-EPC-replacement of references to EONIA into ESTR

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 5

to be applied for each day in a month is the €STREONIA Rrate applicable on the first Banking Business Day of that month based on a 360 days year. The €STR EONIA Rrate is a daily rate published by the ECB every day.

ii. Chapter 7 Terms defined in the Rulebook

€STR EONIA Interest Rate Is a rate which reflects the wholesale euro unsecured overnight borrowing costs of euro area banks. The rate is published for each TARGET2 business day based on transactions conducted and settled on the previous day (reporting date T) with a maturity date of T+1 and which are deemed to be executed at arm’s length and thereby reflect market rates in an unbiased way.A measure of the effective interest rate prevailing in the euro interbank overnight market. It is calculated as a weighted average of the interest rates on unsecured overnight lending transactions denominated in euro, as reported by a panel of contributing banks.

iii. Annex VII e-Mandates - Section 4.5.4 Collection of the Direct Debit Transaction (PR-04)

PT-04.16 – Debtor Bank Sends Collection Refund Instructions to the CSM

(..) This compensation is a variable amount, being the interest calculated for the number of Calendar Days between the Settlement Date of the original Collection (Settlement Date is included in the number of days) and the Settlement Date of the Refund instruction by the CSM after presentation by the Debtor Bank (Settlement day is not included in the number of days). The rate to be applied for each day in a month is the €STR EONIA Rrate applicable on the first Banking Business Day of that month based on a 360 days year. The €STR EONIA Rrate is a daily rate published by the ECB every day.

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Yes. However, its impact is limited as it does not change anything to the business rules themselves.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes. SCT and SDD Core scheme participants will have to conduct changes in the concerned IT systems feeding other systems with the EONIA rate or calculating the interest compensation for SCT and SDD Core-related r-transactions.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No impact.

Page 67: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#07 -SCT and SDD Core-EPC-replacement of references to EONIA into ESTR

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 5

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. The EONIA rate will be replaced by €STR by the end of 2021.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary from the EPC point of view. Reference is made to the public consultation organised by the private sector working group on euro risk-free rates.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. It makes that the SCT and SDD Core scheme participants in SEPA all start using the €STR rate at a well-defined 2021 date to calculate interest compensations for specific r-transactions.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. Reference is made to the public consultation organised by the private sector working group on euro risk-free rates.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 68: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#07 -SCT and SDD Core-EPC-replacement of references to EONIA into ESTR

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 5

Page 69: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 8

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 09 - Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-

transaction reason codes Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 70: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 8

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks.

1.2. Description of the change request: Since 2018, the following SCT and SCT Inst scheme related documents are published on the EPC website:

• Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions (EPC 135-18) • Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Instant Credit Transfer R-transactions (EPC 059-18)

Various SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants highlight the usefulness of these two documents. It eases the correct use of the various SCT and SCT Inst R-transaction reason codes. Therefore, the EPC suggests that

• The SCT and the SCT Inst rulebooks should formally refer to the documents EPC 135-18 and EPC 059-18 respectively;

• The SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants better monitor the correct use of the SCT and SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes as described in these two documents and adjust, where necessary, their internal processes.

The EPC points out that such a reference to a similar document is included in the two SDD scheme rulebooks since November 2017.

The correct application of these reason codes by a Beneficiary Bank, informing an Originator Bank, about a failed SCT or SCT Inst transaction is crucial for the Originator Bank and the Originator to understand the cause of an unsuccessful SCT or SCT Inst transaction and to undertake actions on how to solve the reported issue.

The EPC proposes the following SCT and SCT Inst rulebook changes below in order that all SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants are

• aware about the contents of the documents EPC 135-18 and EPC 059-18; • able to understand and correctly use the reason codes as described in these two documents.

The objective is that scheme participants use without doubt the correct SCT and SCT Inst R-transaction codes to maximise the straight-through processing rate of these exceptional transactions and to provide meaningful information up to the Originator Bank and the Originator.

The EPC considers that keeping the contents of EPC 135-18 and EPC 059-18 outside the SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks allows more flexibility for the EPC to provide updated instructions with respect to SCT and SCT Inst r-transaction reasons on a short notice.

Page 71: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 8

A. Proposed changes to 2019 SCT rulebook version 1.0 i. Section 0.1 references

Document Number

Title Issued by:

[1] EPC115-06 SEPA Credit Transfer Scheme Inter-Bank Implementation Guidelines

EPC

(..) (..) (..)

[15] EPC135-18 Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions

EPC

ii. Section 4.3.2.3 Recall processing

(...)

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO codes should be used for initiating a Recall and for answering to such Recall.

It is the decision of the Beneficiary Bank if it wants to charge a fee to the Originator Bank. This practice is only allowed for a positive response to a Recall. For this purpose, a field is dedicated in the answer message. This practice is limited to Recalls only and has under no circumstances effect on the normal Return procedure as defined in the SCT Rulebook.

iii. Section 4.3.2.4 Request for Recall by the Originator processing (…)

• The Beneficiary Bank must send its answer to a Request for Recall by the Originator within 15 Banking Business Days following the receipt of the Request for Recall by the Originator from the Originator Bank.

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO codes should be used for initiating a Request for Recall by the Originator and for answering to such request.

iv. Section 4.4.1 SCT inquiry (…)

• The inquiry message concerns a single initial SEPA Credit Transfer or a reminder to a single earlier issued SCT inquiry. If several initial SEPA Credit Transfers or reminders to earlier issued SCT inquiries are concerned, then several SCT inquiry messages must be sent.

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO codes should be used for initiating an SCT inquiry.

v. Section 4.4.2 Response-to-SCT-inquiry (…)

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO codes should be used for responding to an SCT inquiry.

Page 72: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 8

It is the decision of the Beneficiary Bank if it wants to charge a fee to the Originator Bank for handling the SCT inquiry.

vi. Section 4.6.1 Attribute details

Identification: AT-R3 Name: The reason code for non-acceptance of the SEPA Credit Transfer

Description: This code identifies the reason for the non-acceptance of the SEPA Credit Transfer. Value range: The reasons for a Reject by the Originator Bank or the CSM are as follows:

• Account identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid IBAN) • Bank identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid BIC) • Duplicate payment • File received after Cut-off Time • Operation/transaction code incorrect, invalid File format • Regulatory reason • Reason not specified • Beneficiary Bank not registered under this BIC in the CSM • Originator Bank not registered under this BIC in the CSM • ERI Option not supported • Settlement of the SEPA Credit Transfer failed

The reasons for a Return by the Beneficiary Bank are as follows: • Account address invalid • Account blocked, reason not specified • Account closed • Account identifier invalid (i.e. invalid IBAN or account number does not exist) • Bank identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid BIC) • Beneficiary deceased • By order of the Beneficiary • SEPA Credit Transfer forbidden on this type of account (e.g. savings account) • Duplicate payment • Operation/transaction code incorrect, invalid File format • Regulatory reason • ERI Option not supported • Beneficiary Bank not registered under this BIC in the CSM • Reason not specified

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO code should be used for each of the above-mentioned reasons under a Reject and a Return.

Page 73: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 8

B. Proposed changes to 2019 SCT Inst rulebook version 1.0 i. Section 0.1 references

Document Number

Title Issued by:

[1] EPC122-16 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Scheme Inter-Bank Implementation Guidelines

EPC

(..) (..) (..)

[15] EPC059-18 Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Instant Credit Transfer R-transactions

EPC

ii. Section 4.3.2.2 SCT Inst Recall processing

(...)

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Instant Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO codes should be used for initiating an SCT Inst Recall and for answering to such SCT Inst Recall.

It is the decision of the Beneficiary Bank if it wants to charge a fee to the Originator Bank. This practice is only allowed for a positive response to a SCT Inst Recall. For this purpose, a field is dedicated in the answer message.

iii. Section 4.3.2.3 Request for Recall by the Originator (…)

• Each party in the Interbank Space receiving the Request for Recall by the Originator from the Originator Bank or receiving the answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator from the Beneficiary Bank, must send the concerned Request for Recall by the Originator and the answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator Immediately to the following party in the Interbank Space, the Beneficiary Bank and the Originator Bank.

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Instant Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO codes should be used for initiating a Request for Recall by the Originator and for answering to such request.

Page 74: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 6 / 8

iv. Section 4.6.1 Attribute details

Identification: AT-R3 Name: The reason code for non-acceptance of the SCT Inst

Description: This code identifies the reason for the non-acceptance of the SCT Inst. Value range: The reasons for a Reject by the Originator Bank are as follows:

• Account identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid IBAN) • Bank identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid BIC) • Duplicate payment • Amount exceeds the maximum authorised amount for SCT Inst • Operation/transaction code incorrect, invalid format • Regulatory reason • Reason not specified

The reasons for a Reject by the CSM are as follows: • Account identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid IBAN) • Bank identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid BIC) • Duplicate payment • Time-out – maximum execution time has been exceeded • Amount exceeds the maximum authorised amount for SCT Inst • Operation/transaction code incorrect, invalid format • Regulatory reason • Reason not specified • Beneficiary Bank not registered under this BIC in the CSM • Originator Bank not registered under this BIC in the CSM • Settlement limit exceeded

The reasons for a Reject by the Beneficiary Bank are as follows: • Time-out – maximum execution time has been exceeded • Amount exceeds the maximum authorised amount for SCT Inst • Account address invalid • Account blocked, reason not specified • Account closed • Account identifier invalid (i.e. invalid IBAN or account number does not exist) • Bank identifier incorrect (i.e. invalid BIC) • Beneficiary deceased • By order of the Beneficiary • Credit transfer forbidden on this type of account • Duplicate payment • Operation/transaction code incorrect, invalid format • Regulatory reason • Reason not specified

The document ‘Guidance on reason codes for SEPA Instant Credit Transfer R-transactions’ ([15]) prescribes which ISO code should be used for each of the above-mentioned reasons under a Reject.

Page 75: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 7 / 8

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

There is no change to the existing business rules for the 2021 version of the SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks, or in the range of R-transaction reasons itself for the various SCT and SCT Inst r-transactions.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

The change suggestion for the SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks makes an explicit reference to another EPC document explaining to scheme participants about the ISO reason codes that should be used for each R-transaction reason specified in the SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No impact.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

No.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 76: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#09 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Reference to separate EPC guidance documents on SCT & SCT Inst r-transaction reason codes

www.epc-cep.eu 8 / 8

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It provides clear information to the scheme participants about the ISO reason code to be used for each r-transaction type under SCT and SCT Inst.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary. The r-transaction reason codes prescribed in the documents EPC 135-18 and EPC 059-18 are already specified in the current applicable versions of the SCT and SCT Inst interbank interoperability guidelines.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. It will lead to the consistent use of the ISO codes among all scheme participants. It will provide accurate information to the Originator Bank and the Originator about the real reason of an unsuccessful SCT or SCT Inst transaction.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. The SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants have already implemented the concerned ISO codes in their systems by following the specifications outlined in the respective interbank interoperability guidelines. They must assess whether their current use of the r-transaction reasons is in line with the documents EPC 135-18 and 059-18.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES. The clearing and settlement mechanisms used by the SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants already support the r-transaction reason codes as specified in the respective interbank interoperability guidelines.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES

Page 77: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 12

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 10 - Alignment of the Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT and SCT

Inst rulebooks, and between both SCT rulebooks Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 78: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 12

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks.

1.2. Description of the change request: A comparison has been done of the contents between the following datasets within each SCT rulebook and between the two SCT rulebooks:

• The ‘Recall’ datasets (DS-05 in both rulebooks) • The ‘Answer to Recall’ datasets (DS-06 in both rulebooks) • The ‘Request for Recall by the Originator’ (RFRO) datasets (DS-07 in the SCT rulebook and DS-

08 in the SCT Inst rulebook respectively) • The ‘Response to the RFRO’ datasets (DS-08 in the SCT rulebook and DS-09 in the SCT Inst

rulebook respectively) • The ‘Recall’ and the ‘RFRO’ datasets within each SCT rulebook • The ‘Answer to Recall’ and the ‘Response to the RFRO’ datasets within each SCT rulebook

The aim of this change request is to harmonise as much as possible the attributes in the datasets for the Recall and the RFRO processes within each SCT rulebook and between the two SCT rulebooks.

Furthermore, the SEMWG proposes an additional business rule in the SCT rulebook attribute AT-57 and in the SCT Inst rulebook attribute AT-59 reflecting the PSD2 principle that PSPs must assist their customers when the latter want to take further actions to recover their funds. However, the two attributes will remain technically ‘optional’.

A. Proposed changes to 2019 SCT rulebook version 1.0

i. Section 4.5.5: DS-05 Recall of SEPA Credit Transfer Dataset

Identification: DS-05 Name: The Recall of a SEPA Credit Transfer Dataset Description: This dataset contains the messages for description of the minimum information that an Originator

Bank needs to make available to the Beneficiary Bank Attributes contained:

Recall of SEPA Credit Transfer: • An exact copy of the original Interbank Payment dataset (DS-02) which is being recalled.

• 04 The amount of the SEPA Credit Transfer in euro

• 48 The Recall reason code

• R2 Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

• R7 The specific reference of the Originator Bank initiating the Recall

• 49 Additional Information to AT-48 The Recall reason code

Page 79: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 12

Identification: DS-05 Name: The Recall of a SEPA Credit Transfer Dataset Remarks: Except for AT-49, these attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the

SEPA Credit Transfer Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in section Error! Reference source not found.. In case the Request for Status Update is used, a clear reference to the original Recall of the SEPA Credit Transfer needs to be provided beside the copy of DS-02.

ii. Section 4.5.6: DS-06 Answer to a Recall of SEPA Credit Transfer Dataset

Identification: DS-06 Name: Answer to a Recall of SEPA Credit Transfer Dataset Description: This dataset contains the messages for the description for sending the answer to a Recall of Credit

Transfer Dataset. Attributes contained:

Positive response for a Recall of a SEPA Credit Transfer • An exact copy of the original Interbank Payment dataset (DS-02) which is being recalled.

• R7 The specific reference of the Originator Bank initiating the Recall • 46 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Recall in euro

• R8 The Settlement Date for the positive answer to the Recall • 47 The fee for the positive answer to a Recall in euro (optional)

• R1 The type of “R” message

• R2 The Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message Negative response for a Recall of a SEPA Credit Transfer

• An exact copy of the original Interbank Payment dataset (DS-02) which is being recalled.

• R6 Reason code for non-acceptance of the Recall

• R7 The specific reference of the Originator Bank initiating the Recall Remarks: These attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SEPA Credit Transfer

Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in section Error! Reference source not found..

iii. Section 4.5.7: DS-07 Request for Recall by the Originator Dataset

Identification: DS-07 Name: Request for Recall by the Originator dataset Description: This dataset contains the attributes describing the minimum information that the Originator Bank

needs to make available in a Request for Recall by the Originator Attributes contained:

• An exact copy of the original Interbank Payment dataset (DS-02) which the Request for Recall by the Originator relates to

• 04 The amount of the SEPA Credit Transfer in euro

• 50 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 51 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 52 Additional Information to AT-50 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator

Page 80: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 12

Identification: DS-07 Name: Request for Recall by the Originator dataset Remarks: These attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SEPA Credit Transfer

Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in Chapter 0.5. In case the Request for Status Update is used, a clear reference to the original Request for Recall by the Originator needs to be provided beside the copy of DS-02.

iv. Section 4.5.8: DS-08 Response to the Request for Recall by the Originator Dataset

Identification: DS-08 Name: Dataset for the Response to the Request for Recall by the Originator Description: This dataset contains the attributes for describing the response from the Beneficiary Bank to a

Request for Recall by the Originator Attributes contained:

Positive response • An exact copy of the original Interbank Payment dataset (DS-02) which the Request for Recall by

the Originator relates to

• 51 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 53 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator in euro

• 54 The settlement date for the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 56 Fee for the positive response to a Request for Recall by the Originator in euro (optional)

• R1 The type of “R” message

• R2 The Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

Negative response • An exact copy of the original Interbank Payment dataset (DS-02) which the Request for Recall by

the Originator relates to

• 51 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 55 Reason code for non-acceptance of the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 57 Provision of all information available to file a legal claim to recover the funds in case of reason code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’ (optional)

Remarks: These attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SEPA Credit Transfer Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in Chapter 0.5.

v. Section 4.6.1: Attribute details

Identification: AT-47 Name: The fee for the positive answer to the Recall in euro (optional)

Description: The amount contains two parts, the first is expressed in euro, and the second is expressed in euro cents. The first part must be larger than or equal to zero euro, and equal to or not larger than 999.999.999 euro. The second part must be larger than or equal to zero euro cent, and smaller than or equal to 99 euro cents. The combined value of 0,00 euro (zero euro and zero euro cent) is not allowed. This is an optional attribute.

Page 81: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 12

Identification: AT-56 Name: Fee for the positive response to a Request for Recall by the Originator in euro (optional)

Description: The amount contains two parts, the first is expressed in euro, and the second is expressed in euro cents The first part must be larger than or equal to zero euro, and equal to or not larger than 999.999.999 euro. The second part must be larger than or equal to zero euro cent, and smaller than or equal to 99 euro cents The combined value of 0,00 euro (zero euro and zero euro cent) is not allowed. This is an optional attribute.

Identification: AT-57 Name: Provision of all information available to file a legal claim to recover the funds in case of reason

code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’ Description: Subject to the data protection laws which apply to the Beneficiary Bank, the Beneficiary Bank

provides all information available of the Beneficiary. This gives the Originator all information to file a legal claim. This is an optional attribute. However, the Participants must bear in mind the principle from the Payment Services Directive that PSPs must assist their Customers when the latter want to take further actions to recover their funds.

Identification: AT-R1 Name: The type of “R” message Description: This code allows to identify the type of “R” message in the handling of the Credit Transfer

Transaction. Value range:

• Reject

• Return

• Recall

• Request for a Recall by the Originator

Identification: AT-R2 Name: The Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

Description: This attribute contains a code identifying the type of party initiating the specific “R” message Reject/Return message or the Recall message.

Value range: • Values applying for Reject/Return messages:

o Originator Bank

o CSM

o Beneficiary Bank

• Values applying for Recall messages:

o Originator

o Originator Bank

Page 82: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 6 / 12

Identification: AT-R7 Name: The specific reference of the Originator Bank initiating the Recall

Description: This reference is determined by the Originator Bank that initiates the Recall of the Credit Transfer Transaction, must be forwarded in the handling of the Recall message to the Beneficiary Bank and optionally to the Beneficiary. It must be specified in any request by the Beneficiary or the Beneficiary Bank to the initiating party to obtain more information about the reasons for the Recall.

Page 83: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 7 / 12

B. Proposed changes to 2019 SCT Inst rulebook version 1.0 i. Section 4.5.5: DS-05 Recall of an SCT Inst Dataset

Identification DS-05 Name The Recall of an SCT Inst dataset Description This dataset contains the messages for description of the minimum information that an

Originator Bank needs to make available to the Beneficiary Bank Attributes contained

Request for Recall of an SCT Inst: • An exact copy of the original Interbank payment dataset (DS-02) which is being

recalled.

• 04 The amount of the SCT Inst in euro

• 48 The Recall reason code

• R2 Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

• R6 The specific reference of the Originator Bbank initiating the Recall

• 49 Additional Information to AT-48 The Recall reason code

Remarks Except for AT-49, these attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SCT Inst Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in section Error! Reference source not found.. In case the Request for Status Update is used, a clear reference to the original SCT Inst Recall needs to be provided beside the copy of DS-02.

ii. Section 4.5.6: DS-06 Answer to a Recall of an SCT Inst Dataset

Identification DS-06 Name Answer to a Recall of an SCT Inst dataset Description This dataset contains the messages for the description for sending the answer to a Recall of

an SCT Inst dataset Attributes contained

Positive response for a Recall of an SCT Inst • An exact copy of the original interbank payment dataset (DS-02) which is being

recalled.

• R6 The specific reference of the Originator Bbank initiating the Recall • 46 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Recall in euro

• R1 The type of “R” message • R2 The Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message • R7 The Settlement Date for the positive answer to the Recall

• 47 The fee for the positive answer to a Recall in euro (optional)

Negative response for a Recall of an SCT Inst • An exact copy of the original Interbank payment dataset (DS-02) which is being

recalled.

• R6 The specific reference of the Originator Bank initiating the Recall

• R5 Reason code for non-acceptance of the Recall

Remarks These attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SCT Inst Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in section Error! Reference source not found..

Page 84: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 8 / 12

iii. Section 4.5.8: DS-08 Request for Recall by the Originator Dataset

Identification DS-08 Name Request for Recall by the Originator dataset Description This dataset contains the attributes describing the minimum information that the Originator

Bank needs to make available in a Request for Recall by the Originator Attributes contained

• An exact copy of the original Interbank payment dataset (DS-02) which the Request for Recall by the Originator relates to

• 04 The amount of the SCT Inst in euro • 52 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator • 53 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the

Originator • 54 Additional Information to AT-52 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the

Originator Remarks These attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SCT Inst

Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in Chapter 0.5. In case the Request for Status Update is used, a clear reference to the original Request for Recall by the Originator needs to be provided beside the copy of DS-02.

Page 85: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 9 / 12

iv. Section 4.5.9: DS-09 Response to the Request for Recall by the Originator Dataset

Identification DS-09 Name Dataset for the response to the Request for Recall by the Originator Description This dataset contains the attributes for describing the response from the Beneficiary Bank to a

Request for Recall by the Originator Attributes contained

Positive response • An exact copy of the original Interbank payment dataset (DS-02) which the Request for

Recall by the Originator relates to

• 53 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 55 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator in euro

• 56 The settlement date for the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator

• R1 The type of “R” message

• R2 The Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

• 58 Fee for the positive response to a Request for Recall by the Originator in euro (optional)

Negative response • An exact copy of the original Interbank payment dataset (DS-02) which the Request for

Recall by the Originator relates to

• 53 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 57 Reason code for non-acceptance of the Request for Recall by the Originator

• 59 Provision of all information available to file a legal claim to recover the funds in case of reason code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’ (optional)

Remarks These attributes reflect business requirements and do not prescribe fields in the SCT Inst Scheme Interbank Implementation Guidelines as defined in Chapter 0.5

v. Section 4.6.1: attribute details

Identification: AT-58 Name: Fee for the positive response to a Request for Recall by the Originator in euro (optional)

Description: The amount contains two parts, the first is expressed in euro, and the second is expressed in euro cents. The first part must be larger than or equal to zero euro, and equal to or not larger than 999.999.999 euro. The second part must be larger than or equal to zero euro cent, and smaller than or equal to 99 euro cents. The combined value of 0,00 euro (zero euro and zero euro cent) is not allowed. This is an optional attribute.

Page 86: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 10 / 12

Identification: AT-59 Name: Provision of all information available to file a legal claim to recover the funds in case of

reason code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’

Description: Subject to the data protection laws which apply to the Beneficiary Bank, the Beneficiary Bank provides all information available of the Beneficiary. This gives the Originator all information to file a legal claim. This is an optional attribute. However, the Participants must bear in mind the principle from the Payment Services Directive that PSPs must assist their Customers when the latter want to take further actions to recover their funds.

Identification: AT-R1 Name: The type of “R” message Description: This code allows to identify the type of “R” message in the handling of the SCT Inst

Transaction. Value range:

• Reject

• Recall

• Request for a Recall by the Originator

Identification: AT-R2 Name: The Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

Description: This attribute contains a code identifying the type of party initiating the specific “R” messageReject message or the Recall message.

Value range: • Values applying for Reject messages:

o CSM

o Beneficiary Bank

• Values applying for Recall messages:

o Originator

o Originator Bank

Identification: AT-R6 Name: The specific reference of the Originator Bbank initiating the Recall

Description: This reference is determined by the Originator Bbank that initiates the Recall of the SCT Inst Transaction. It must be forwarded in the handling of the Recall message to the Beneficiary Bank and optionally to the Beneficiary. It must be specified in any request by the Beneficiary or the Beneficiary Bank to the initiating party to obtain more information about the reasons for the Recall.

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Page 87: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 11 / 12

There will be impact as certain Recall and RFRO process-related datasets will contain additional attributes. On the other hand, these extra attributes for the Recall processes are already used for the RFRO processes and vice-versa.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes. All affected datasets are exclusively used in the interbank space. There is no impact on the Customer-to-Bank space.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Yes. Additional attributes will have to be completed in the concerned camt.056, pacs.004 and camt.029 either for the Recall processes or for the RFRO processes.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 88: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#10 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Alignm. of Recall and RFRO datasets within the SCT & SCT Inst RBs and between both RBs

www.epc-cep.eu 12 / 12

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It further harmonizes and enriches the existing datasets used for the Recall and RFRO processes in both SCT schemes.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary. The proposed extra attributes in the Recall-related datasets already exist in the RFRO-related datasets (and vice-versa).

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. It will lead to the use of the same attributes for two very similar SCT and SCT Inst processes.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. The proposed extra attributes in the Recall-related datasets already exist in both SCT rulebooks.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES. The clearing and settlement mechanisms used by the SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants already support transmission of these same attributes in other existing SCT and SCT Inst processes.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES

Page 89: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 6

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 11 - Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall

procedure Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 90: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#11 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 6

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks.

1.2. Description of the change request: The two SCT rulebooks prescribe that the Originator Bank can initiate the Recall procedure in case of a fraudulent originated SCT or SCT Inst instruction.

However, the use of the Recall procedure has a limited timespan i.e. the Originator Bank must send out the Recall within the period of 10 Banking Business Days following the execution date of the initial SCT or SCT Inst transaction subject to the Recall. It may well happen that the Originator only detects a fraudulent SCT or SCT Inst instruction and/or escalates this fraud to the Originator Bank after this first period of 10 days has passed.

The suggestion is that a Recall request can be done up to 13 months following the execution date of the initial SCT or SCT Inst transaction. The extension of this timeline for a Recall request applies only for the reason code ‘Fraud’, the current ten Banking Business Days continue to apply for the reasons ‘Technical reason’ and ‘Duplicate’.

Furthermore, to allow alignment with the Request for Recall by the Originator (RFRO) procedure, the SEMWG also proposes that in case of a negative answer (i.e. camt.029 message) to a Recall request bearing the reason code ‘Fraud’, the SCT and SCT Inst interbank implementation guidelines specify that 10 occurrences of “additional information” in the camt.029 message are allowed. This number of occurrences should be sufficient for the Beneficiary Bank to provide the Originator Bank with all information the Beneficiary Bank is allowed to provide about the supposed Beneficiary-fraudster.

A. Proposed changes to 2019 SCT rulebook version 1.0

i. Section 4.3.2.3: Recall processing

(….) The main characteristics of a Recall and the answer to a Recall (DS-05 and DS-06 in section 4.5) are: • The Originator Bank must send out the Recall within the period of 10 Banking Business

Days for the reasons ‘Duplicate sending’ and ‘Technical problems resulting in erroneous SCTs’, and within the period of 13 months for the reason ’Fraudulent originated SEPA Credit Transfer’ following the execution date of the initial SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction subject to the Recall;

(…)

Page 91: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#11 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 6

CT-02.00 &CT-02.01

The Originator Bank realizes the need to recall a SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction.

It may also receive a request from the Originator (see CT-02.00). Before initiating the Recall procedure, the Originator Bank must check if the initial SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction:

• Had an execution date towards the CSM of less than or equal to 10 Banking Business Days before the Recall;

• Had been wrongly executed for one of the reasons listed below:

Duplicate sending;

Technical problems resulting in an erroneous SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction;

Fraudulent originated SEPA Credit Transfer Instruction.

• Had an execution date towards the CSM of less than or equal to 10 Banking Business Days or 13 months (depending on the reason reported) before the Recall;

The path used for initiating the Recall should be identical to the one used for the initial SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction subject to the Recall.

The Originator Bank must send out the Recall within the period of 10 Banking Business Days or 13 months (depending on the reason reported) following the execution date of the initial SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction.

CT-02.01R The Originator Bank can reject the request of the Originator to make a Recall when it judges that the initial SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction is not the subject of one of the foregoing reasons or if this request was submitted more than 10 Banking Business Days or 13 months (depending on the reason reported) after the execution date of the initial SCT Transaction.

B. Proposed changes to 2019 SCT Inst rulebook version 1.0

i. Section 4.3.2.2: SCT Inst Recall processing (PR-02)

(…)

The main characteristics of a SCT Inst Recall and the answer to a SCT Inst Recall (DS-05 and DS-06 in section Error! Reference source not found.) are: • The Originator Bank must send out the SCT Inst Recall within 10 Banking Business Days

for the reasons ‘Duplicate sending’ and ‘Technical problems resulting in an erroneous SCT Inst’, and within the period of 13 months for the reason ’Fraudulent originated SCT Inst’ after the execution date of the initial SCT Inst Transaction;

(…)

Page 92: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#11 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 6

CT-02.01 The Originator Bank realises the need to recall an SCT Inst Transaction. It may also receive a Recall request from the Originator (see CT-02.00).

Before initiating the Recall procedure, the Originator Bank must check if the initial SCT Inst Transaction:

• Had an execution date of less than or equal to 10 Banking Business Days before the Recall;

• Had been wrongly executed for one of the reasons listed below:

Duplicate sending;

Technical problems resulting in an erroneous SCT Inst Transaction;

Fraudulent originated SCT Inst Instruction.

• Had an execution date of less than or equal to 10 Banking Business Days or 13 months (depending on the reason reported) before the Recall;

The path used for initiating the SCT Inst Recall should be identical to the one used for the initial SCT Inst Transaction.

The Originator Bank must send out the SCT Inst Recall within the period of 10 Banking Business Days or 13 months (depending on the reason reported) following the execution date of the SCT Inst Transaction.

CT-02.01R The Originator Bank can reject the request of the Originator to make a Recall when it judges that the initial SCT Inst Transaction is not the subject of one of the foregoing reasons or if this request was submitted more than 10 Banking Business Days or 13 months (depending on the reason reported) after the execution date of the initial SCT Inst Transaction.

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Yes. The extension of the use of the reason code ‘Fraudulent originated SCT/ SCT Inst Instruction’ up to 13 months requires some system changes.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes. All SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants will have to support Recall requests with the reason code ‘Fraudulent originated SCT/ SCT Inst Instruction’ up to 13 months after the execution date of the SCT/SCT Inst transaction.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Yes. Extension of the number of occurrences of ‘Additional information’ in the negative answer to the negative answer to a Recall request bearing the reason code ‘Fraudulent originated SCT/ SCT Inst Instruction’.

Page 93: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#11 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 6

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 94: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#11 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Use of 'Fraud' reason code up to 13 months under the Recall procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 6 / 6

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It further contributes to a harmonized and a further automated handling of fraud claims about executed SCT and SCT Inst transactions up to 13 months after the debit date of the initial SCT or SCT Inst transaction.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary. It concerns just the amendment of the business rules until when the Recall procedure can be used. Note that the Recall and the Request For Recall by the Originator (RFRO) procedures both use the same message. Furthermore, the implemented RFRO procedure forms a precedent as this procedure can be invoked up to 13 months after the debit date of the initial SCT or SCT Inst transaction.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. Please to the answer for the first question.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. Please to the answer for the second question.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES. The clearing and settlement mechanisms used by the SCT and SCT Inst scheme participants already are familiar with the RFRO procedure for which a timespan of 13 months must be supported.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 95: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 4

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 12 - Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 96: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#12 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 4

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT and SCT Inst scheme rulebooks.

1.2. Description of the change request: The two SCT rulebooks apply somewhat different definitions for Banking Business Day (BBD):

SCT rulebook definition of BBD in Chapter 7:

Banking Business Day Banking Business Day means, in relation to a Participant, a day on which that Participant is open for business, as required for the execution of a SEPA Credit Transfer.

SCT Inst rulebook definition of BBD in Chapter 7:

Banking Business Day Banking Business Day means, in relation to a Participant, a day on which that Participant is open for business

Although the two SCT rulebooks represent two stand-alone schemes, the suggestion is to align such definitions as best as possible. (Note: the corresponding definitions between the two SDD rulebooks are already aligned).

For the SCT Inst scheme in particular, even though all SCT Inst scheme participants must process the initial SCT Inst transactions on a 24/7/365 basis, each individual SCT Inst scheme participant may take a different stance about its availability to initiate and/or reply to SCT Inst r-transactions.

An example is the maximum timespan during which an Originator Bank can submit a SCT Inst Recall i.e. 10 Banking Business Days (BBDs) and the maximum timespan for the Beneficiary Bank to respond to that SCT Inst Recall (i.e. 15 BBDs). An Originator Bank may operate on a 24/7/365 basis for SCT Inst Recall-related services and could expect that the Beneficiary Bank also has set up a 24/7/365 operating window to respond to such SCT Inst Recall. This may not always be the case.

The suggestion to amend the above-mentioned definitions as follows:

SCT rulebook definition of BBD in Chapter 7:

Banking Business Day It equals a TARGET2 day Banking Business Day means, in relation to a Participant, a day on which that Participant is open for business, as required and applies to for the interbank execution of a SEPA Credit Transfer, and of any related r-transactions and SCT inquiries.

SCT Inst rulebook definition of BBD in Chapter 7:

Page 97: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#12 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 4

Banking Business Day It equals a TARGET2 day and applies only to the Recall and RFRO proceduresBanking Business Day means, in relation to a Participant, a day on which that Participant is open for business

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

No. It only provides each scheme participant with a short and unambiguous definition of such term.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

No.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 98: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#12 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Clarification on the definition of Banking Business Day

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 4

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It provides each scheme participant with a short and unambiguous definition of such term.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. The term Banking Business Day being equal to an TARGET2 day removes all possible interpretation across SEPA.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. This change request is a mere clarification.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 99: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 9

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 14 - Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 100: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 9

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT rulebook.

1.2. Description of the change request: In the run-up to the 17 November 2019 go-live date of the SCT inquiry procedure, the EPC received several clarification requests on how correctly interpret this new procedure. In May 2019, the EPC published the version 1.4 of the Clarification Paper on SEPA Credit Transfer and SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Scheme Rulebooks providing further clarifications and schematic workflows in sections 3.2 and 3.3.

With this change request, the EPC proposes to include the clarifications and workflows relevant for the SCT scheme rulebook in the 2021 rulebook version.

Proposed changes to 2019 SCT rulebook version 1.0

i. Section 4.4.1: SCT inquiry

An SCT inquiry occurs when a Participant requests information or clarification about the status of a SEPA Credit Transfer. The Rulebook foresees the following reasons for a SCT inquiry:

i. Claim of Non-Receipt: the Beneficiary claims not to have received the initial SEPA Credit Transfer. The Originator Bank is asked to investigate if and when the initial SEPA Credit Transfer had been executed. The cause for this claim can be at the Originator Bank, the Beneficiary Bank and/or in the clearing and settlement layer.

The assumption is that the Beneficiary will contact first the Originator, and that the Originator will launch a claim for non-receipt to the Originator Bank. The situation where the Beneficiary directly addresses a claim for non-receipt to the Beneficiary Bank is not described in the Scheme.

ii. Claim for Value Date Correction: the Beneficiary claims that the initial SEPA Credit Transfer has been credited with a value date later than the date the amount would have been value dated had the transaction been correctly executed. The Originator Bank is asked to investigate at what precise date the initial SEPA Credit Transfer had been executed. The cause for this claim can be at the Originator Bank, the Beneficiary Bank and/or in the clearing and settlement layer. The assumption is that the Beneficiary will contact first the Originator, and that the Originator will launch a claim for late execution to the Originator Bank. The situation where the Beneficiary directly addresses a claim of late execution to the Beneficiary Bank is not described in the Scheme.

Page 101: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 9

In case the cause does not fall within the responsibility of the Beneficiary Bank, then the Beneficiary Bank has the right to receive interest compensation and/or a fee from the Originator Bank. This compensation is a variable amount, being the interest calculated for the number of calendar days between the original value date and the corrected value date of the original SEPA Credit Transfer. The rate to be applied for each day in a month is the EONIA rate applicable on the first banking business day of that month based on a 360 days year. The EONIA rate is a daily rate published by the ECB every day. The Beneficiary Bank, if it decides so, may recover this compensation from the Originator Bank by specifying the compensation amount in AT-85 in the DS-10.

iii. Request for Status Update: in the exceptional case of no response from the Beneficiary Bank

within the deadline defined in section 4.4.2, the Originator Bank may send a Request for Status Update the Originator Bank can to remind the Beneficiary Bank about the SCT inquiry reasons ‘Claim of Non-Receipt’ and ‘Claim of Value Date Correction’ that has been addressed earlier to the Beneficiary Bank and which the Beneficiary Bank has not yet replied to.

An SCT inquiry can only be made for a SEPA Credit Transfer when the (claimed) debit date of the concerned SEPA Credit Transfer falls within the period of 13 months preceding the date at which the Originator submits an inquiry for the reasons i and ii to the Originator Bank. The main characteristics of a SCT inquiry (DS-09) are:

• The SCT inquiry message is routed through the same path which was used for the initial SEPA Credit Transfer / initial SCT inquiry message;

• A record of the relevant data relating to the initial SEPA Credit Transfer/ initial SCT inquiry message, sufficient to provide an audit trail, is included with no alteration of the data contained in the initial SEPA Credit Transfer/ initial SCT inquiry message;

• The inquiry message concerns a single initial SEPA Credit Transfer or a Request for Status Update reminder to a single earlier issued SCT inquiry. If several initial SEPA Credit Transfers or Requests for Status Update or reminders to earlier issued SCT inquiries are concerned, then several SCT inquiry messages must be sent.

ii. Section 4.4.2: Response-to-SCT-inquiry

The Response-to-SCT-inquiry message is made by the Beneficiary Bank. The concerned Beneficiary Bank addresses its response to the Originator Bank that initiated the SCT inquiry, informing the latter about

• The final investigation outcome (whether positive or negative) for a SCT inquiry; and • Optionally providing details about the corrective action undertaken.

The non-response to an SCT inquiry will be considered as a breach against the Rulebook. The main characteristics of a Response-to-SCT-Inquiry (DS-10) are:

Page 102: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 9

• The response-to-SCT-inquiry message is routed through the same path which was used for the initial SCT inquiry message;

• A record of the relevant data relating to the initial SCT inquiry message, sufficient to provide an audit trail, is included with no alteration of the data contained in the initial SCT inquiry message;

• The response-to-SCT-inquiry message concerns a single SCT inquiry/ a Request for Status Updatereminder to a single earlier issued SCT inquiry at a time. If several SCT inquiries or Requests for Status Update to earlier issued SCT inquiries are concerned, then several response-to-SCT-inquiry messages must be sent;

• • The Beneficiary Bank has tomust provide a response-to-SCT-inquiry message about the

concerned SCT inquiry within 10 Banking Business Days after it has received the SCT inquiry message. The Beneficiary Bank is in breach with the Rulebook if it has not responded to the SCT inquiry within this period of 10 Banking Business Days.

The Beneficiary Bank does not have to respond to a Request for Status Update if it has already responded to the original SCT inquiry which this Request for Status Update refers to.

It is the decision of the Beneficiary Bank if it wants to charge a fee to the Originator Bank for handling the SCT inquiry. This practice is only allowed for a positive response to an SCT inquiry for the reasons ‘Claim of Non-Receipt’ and ‘Claim for Value Date Correction’. For this purpose, AT-86 is foreseen in the response message DS-10. The reference [1] specifies how the Beneficiary Bank can provide the Originator Bank with the concrete account of the Beneficiary Bank to be credited and the fee amount itself.

The positive response to an SCT inquiry for the reason ‘Claim of Non-Receipt’ confirms that the Beneficiary Bank has credited the initial SCT transaction on the account of the Beneficiary. The Beneficiary Bank provides the Originator Bank with the date on which this SCT transaction has been credited.

When in case of an SCT inquiry for the reason ‘Claim for Value Date Correction’ the Beneficiary Bank is not the cause of the incorrect value date, it has the right to receive interest compensation and/or a fee from the Originator Bank.

This interest compensation is a variable amount, being the interest calculated for the number of calendar days between the original value date and the corrected value date of the original SEPA Credit Transfer. The rate to be applied for each day in a month is the €STR rate applicable on the first banking business day of that month based on a 360 days year. The €STR rate is a rate published by the ECB.

The Beneficiary Bank can only claim an interest compensation from the Originator Bank in case a positive €STR rate is applied to correct the value date. The Beneficiary Bank communicates the interest compensation amount in AT-85 in DS-10.

Page 103: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 9

The Beneficiary Bank can request to receive first the interest compensation and/or1 any optional SCT inquiry fee before it executes the value date correction. In this case, it reports a positive response to the Originator Bank with all concrete payment modalities. The Beneficiary Bank can also respond that it has executed the value date correction • And requests the Originator Bank to pay the interest compensation and any optional SCT

inquiry fee at a later stage; or • Requests no interest compensation at all (e.g., a negative €STR rate) but may still ask for an

SCT inquiry fee; or • As it has well received the interest compensation and/or any optional SCT inquiry fee. In these three cases, The Beneficiary Bank reports a confirmed positive response to the Originator Bank with all concrete payment modalities where applicable. The Beneficiary Bank reports at just one occasion the total amount in interest compensation and/or fees for handling an SCT inquiry for the reason ‘Claim for Value Date Correction’: either at the moment it communicates the claim to receive first the interest compensation and/or the fee before executing the value date correction, or at the moment it communicates that the value date correction has been done.

The reference [1] specifies how the Beneficiary Bank can provide the Originator Bank with the concrete account of the Beneficiary Bank to be credited, the interest compensation amount and/ or the optional SCT inquiry fee. The payment of the compensation amount and/ or the fee falls outside the scope of the Scheme. -NEW- Section 4.4.3: Schematic workflow of SCT inquiry processes The workflows display the various steps to be taken for the Originator Bank and the Beneficiary Bank to initiate and to respond respectively to an SCT inquiry for the reasons ‘Claim of Non-Receipt’ (Figure XX) and ‘Claim for Value Date Correction’ (Figure YY).

1 in case of a negative interest rate, the Beneficiary Bank still has the option to request just an SCT inquiry fee.

Page 104: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 6 / 9

Figure XX

Page 105: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 7 / 9

Figure YY

Page 106: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 8 / 9

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Yes. This change request converts and consolidates the various clarifications on SCT inquiries given in the version 1.4 of the Clarification Paper on SEPA Credit Transfer and SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Scheme Rulebooks, as formal business and technical rules in the SCT rulebook.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes. All SCT scheme participants will have to comply with the proposed formal business and technical rules on SCT inquiries.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Yes. The selected ISO 20022 messages and EPC specifications to their completion and usage will be subject to some changes even though the main specifications are available since 2018 with addendum and errata issued in May 2019. The proposed formal business and technical rules for the SCT rulebook under this change request reflect these EPC specifications.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 107: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#14 -SCT-EPC-Inclusion of extra interbank rules in the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 9 / 9

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It provides each SCT scheme participant with formal business and technical rules defined in the SCT rulebook itself.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary. The decision to include formal inquiry procedures in the SCT rulebook had already been taken in 2016. This change request proposes to incorporate clarifications as firm business and technical rules in the rulebook.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. Please to the answer for the first question.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. Please to the answer for the second question.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES. The clearing and settlement mechanisms used by the SCT scheme participants already support the SCT inquiry procedure since November 2019.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES

Page 108: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 4

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 16 - Alignment of all attribute numbers across all EPC SEPA scheme

rulebooks Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 109: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#16 -All schemes-EPC-Alignment of all attribute numbers across all rulebooks

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 4

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): November 2022.

1.2. Description of the change request: Each SEPA payment scheme rulebook describes a range of attributes (ATs) which compose a dataset to be used to execute a certain rulebook process. Under each rulebook, each AT has a unique sequence number. However, many AT descriptions are identical or similar in all four rulebooks but they all bear a different unique sequence number in each rulebook.

The proposal is to align the sequence number of these ATs between the four rulebooks. This suggestion also includes the grouping of ATs and their subsequent sequence numbering into different AT sequence number categories. Each such category has its own sequence number structure.

Persons in charge of the implementation and maintenance of the SEPA usage rules in the customer-to-bank (C2B) and interbank systems, will get the same understanding about each AT sequence number in the SEPA usage rules of all C2B and interbank implementation guidelines (IGs). It also helps the EPC in its future management of the AT sequence numbering.

The table attached to this change request lists the following data:

• The defined ATs from each rulebook with their current sequence numbers • The alignment of identical or similar ATs across the four schemes • The proposed new AT sequence number for each AT in each rulebook

The SEMWG understands that such renumbering can impact individual scheme participants and payment end-users. They can use the current AT numbering in e.g., their technical implementation documentation and in technical and business processes.

As this change concerns a format change but not a change to any functional or business rules, the SEMWG proposes to isolate the implementation of this change from the other accepted changes for the 2021 EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks. The SEMWG proposes to implement this change in November 2022.

If this change is accepted, two sets of 2021 EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks will be published:

• One set entering into force in November 2021 published in November 2020; • A second set entering into force in November 2022 published in the course of 2021 covering

the attribute re-alignment. This second set may also include the change request #20 from the EPC on the migration to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard in case also this change request is accepted.

Page 110: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#16 -All schemes-EPC-Alignment of all attribute numbers across all rulebooks

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 4

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

No impact. This change does not affect the business, technical or usage rules of each scheme. It only aligns the sequence number of each AT in each rulebook.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

No impact assumed.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No impact. It only aligns the sequence number of each AT in the specified SEPA usage rules in the C2B and interbank IGs.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes. Renumbering of the AT sequence numbers.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 111: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#16 -All schemes-EPC-Alignment of all attribute numbers across all rulebooks

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 4

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It harmonises the sequence number of each AT across all four rulebooks. Persons in charge of the implementation and maintenance of the SEPA usage rules in the C2B and interbank systems, will get the same understanding about each AT sequence number in the SEPA usage rules of the C2B and interbank IGs for all four EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks. It also helps the EPC in its future management of the AT sequence numbering.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary from the EPC point of view. It does not imply any costs for the scheme participants.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. It provides an unambiguous meaning about each AT sequence number for all four EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. It is just a renumbering of the AT sequence numbers in the rulebooks and in the IGs.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 112: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC SEPA payment Schemes - AT-list comparison - Proposal of AT organisation and renumbering

SCT SCT Inst Proposed AT n° SDD Core SDD B2BPayer details ("P" attributes standing for the Parties involved in the payment (Payer, Payee and their respectives PSPs))

AT-02 The name of the Originator AT-02 The name of the Originator AT-P01 AT-14 The name of the Debtor AT-14 The name of the DebtorAT-03 The address of the Originator AT-03 The address of the Originator AT-P02 AT-09 The address of the Debtor AT-09 The address of the DebtorAT-10 The Originator identification code AT-10 The Originator identification code AT-P03 AT-27 Debtor identification code AT-27 Debtor identification codeAT-08 The name of the Originator Reference Party AT-08 The name of the Originator Reference Party AT-P04 AT-15 The name of the Debtor reference Party AT-15 The name of the Debtor reference Party AT-09 The identification code of the Originator Reference Party

AT-09 The identification code of the Originator Reference Party AT-P05 AT-37 The identification code of the Debtor Reference Party AT-37 The identification code of the Debtor Reference Party

For future use For future use AT-P06 For future use For future useAT-P07AT-P08AT-P09AT-P10AT-P11AT-P12AT-P13AT-P14AT-P15AT-P16AT-P17AT-P18AT-P19AT-P20

Payee details ("P" attributes standing for the Parties involved in the payment (Payer, Payee and their respectives PSPs))

AT-21 The name of the Beneficiary AT-21 The name of the Beneficiary AT-P21 AT-03 The name of the Creditor AT-03 The name of the CreditorAT-22 The address of the Beneficiary AT-22 The address of the Beneficiary AT-P22 AT-05 The address of the Creditor AT-05 The address of the Creditor AT-24 The Beneficiary identification code AT-24 The Beneficiary identification code AT-P23 AT-02 The identifier of the Creditor AT-02 The identifier of the CreditorAT-28 The name of the Beneficiary Reference Party AT-28 The name of the Beneficiary Reference Party AT-P24 AT-38 The name of the Creditor Reference Party AT-38 The name of the Creditor Reference PartyAT-29 The identification code of the Beneficiary Reference Party

AT-29 The identification code of the Beneficiary Reference Party AT-P25 AT-39 The identification code of the Creditor Reference Party AT-39 The identification code of the Creditor Reference Party

For future use For future use AT-P26 For future use For future useAT-P27AT-P28AT-P29AT-P30AT-P31AT-P32AT-P33AT-P34AT-P35AT-P36AT-P37AT-P38AT-P39AT-P40

Payer PSP's details ("P" attributes standing for the Parties involved in the payment (Payer, Payee and their respectives PSPs))

AT-01 The IBAN of the account of the Originator AT-01 The IBAN of the account of the Originator AT-P41 AT-07 The IBAN of the account number (IBAN) of the Debtor AT-07 The IBAN of the account number (IBAN) of the Debtor AT-06 The BIC code of the Originator Bank AT-06 The BIC code of the Originator Bank AT-P42 AT-13 BIC code of the Debtor Bank AT-13 BIC code of the Debtor BankFor future use For future use AT-P43 For future use For future use

AT-P44AT-P45AT-P46AT-P47

#16-All Schemes-EPC-attribute alignment table 1/5

Page 113: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

SCT SCT Inst Proposed AT n° SDD Core SDD B2B

AT-P48AT-P49AT-P50

Payee PSP's details ("P" attributes standing for the Parties involved in the payment (Payer, Payee and their respectives PSPs))

AT-20 The IBAN of the account of the Beneficiary AT-20 The IBAN of the account of the Beneficiary AT-P51 AT-04 The IBAN of the account number (IBAN) of the Creditor AT-04 The IBAN of the account number (IBAN) of the Creditor AT-23 The BIC code of the Beneficiary Bank AT-23 The BIC code of the Beneficiary Bank AT-P52 AT-12 BIC code of the Creditor Bank AT-12 BIC code of the Creditor BankFor future use For future use AT-Pxx For future use For future use

Payment instruction details ("T" attributes standing for the attributes of the Transaction in the C2B and the interbank spaces)

AT-40 The identification code of the Scheme AT-40 The identification code of the SCT Inst Scheme AT-T01 AT-20 The identification code of the Scheme AT-20 The identification code of the B2B SchemeAT-04 The amount of the SEPA Credit Transfer in euro AT-04 The amount of the SCT Inst in euro AT-T02 AT-06 The amount of the Collection in euro AT-06 The amount of the Collection in euro

AT-05 The Remittance Information sent by the Originator to the Beneficiary in the Credit Transfer Instruction

AT-05 The Remittance Information sent by the Originator to the Beneficiary in the SCT Inst Instruction AT-T03

AT-22 The Remittance Information sent by the Creditor to the Debtor in the Collection

AT-22 The Remittance Information sent by the Creditor to the Debtor in the Collection

AT-61 The unstructured Remittance Information sent by the Originator to the Beneficiary in the SEPA Credit Transfer Instruction (ERI option) AT-T04AT-62 The structured Remittance Information sent by the Originator to the Beneficiary in the SEPA Credit Transfer Instruction (ERI option) AT-T05AT-07 The Requested Execution Date of the Credit Transfer Instruction

AT-07 The Requested Execution Date of the SCT Inst Instruction AT-T06 AT-11 The Due Date of the Collection AT-11 The Due Date of the Collection

AT-41 The Originator’s reference of the Credit Transfer Transaction AT-41 The Originator’s reference of the SCT Inst Instruction AT-T07

AT-T08 AT-10 The Creditor’s reference of the Direct Debit Transaction AT-10 The Creditor’s reference of the Direct Debit TransactionAT-44 The purpose of the SEPA Credit Transfer AT-44 The purpose of the SCT Inst Instruction AT-T09 AT-58 The purpose of the Collection AT-58 The purpose of the Collection

AT-45 The category purpose of the SEPA Credit Transfer AT-45 The category purpose of the SCT Inst Instruction AT-T10 AT-59 The category purpose of the Collection AT-59 The category purpose of the Collection

AT-T11 AT-18 The identifier of the original Creditor who issued the Mandate AT-18 The identifier of the original Creditor who issued the Mandate

AT-T12AT-19 The unique Mandate reference as given by the original Creditor who issued the Mandate

AT-19 The unique Mandate reference as given by the original Creditor who issued the Mandate

AT-T13 AT-17 The type of Mandate (paper, e-Mandate) AT-17 The type of Mandate (paper, e-Mandate)For future use For future use AT-T14 For future use For future use

AT-T15AT-T16AT-T17AT-T18AT-T19AT-T20AT-T21AT-T22AT-T23AT-T24AT-T25AT-T26AT-T27AT-T28AT-T29AT-T30

Interbank transaction details ("T" attributes standing for the attributes of the Transaction in the interbank spaces)

AT-42 The Settlement Date of the SEPA Credit Transfer AT-42 The Settlement Date of the SCT Inst Transaction AT-T31 AT-26 The Settlement Date of the Collection AT-26 The Settlement Date of the Collection

#16-All Schemes-EPC-attribute alignment table 2/5

Page 114: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

SCT SCT Inst Proposed AT n° SDD Core SDD B2B

AT-43 The Originator Bank’s reference of the SEPA Credit Transfer Transaction

AT-43 The Originator Bank’s reference of the SCT Inst Transaction message AT-T32 AT-43 The Creditor Bank’s reference of the Collection AT-43 The Creditor Bank’s reference of the CollectionAT-50 Time Stamp of the SCT Inst Transaction AT-T33AT-51 The Beneficiary Bank’s reference of the SCT Inst Transaction (status ID) AT-T34

For future use For future use AT-Txx For future use For future useMandate information details

AT-M01 AT-01 The unique Mandate reference AT-01 The unique Mandate referenceAT-M02 AT-08 The identifier of the underlying contract AT-08 The identifier of the underlying contractAT-M03 AT-21 The transaction type AT-21 The transaction typeAT-M04 AT-25 The date of signing of the Mandate AT-25 The date of signing of the MandateAT-M05 AT-33 The signature(s) of the Debtor(s) AT-33 The signature(s) of the Debtor(s)AT-M06 AT-16 The placeholder for the electronic signature data AT-16 The placeholder for the electronic signature dataAT-M07 AT-24 The reason for amendment of the Mandate AT-24 The reason for amendment of the MandateAT-M08 AT-36 The signing date of the cancellation of the Mandate AT-36 The signing date of the cancellation of the MandateAT-M09 For future use of new generic ATs For future use of new generic ATsAT-M10 For future use of new generic ATs For future use of new generic ATs

AT-M11AT-29 The message type submitted in the Debtor validation request (issuing, amendment, cancellation) (e-mandate specific)

AT-29 The message type submitted in the Debtor validation request (issuing, amendment, cancellation) (e-mandate specific)

AT-M12AT-60 The reference of the validation made by the Debtor Bank (e-mandate specific)

AT-60 The reference of the validation made by the Debtor Bank (e-mandate specific)

AT-M13 AT-61 - The result of the Debtor validation (e-mandate specific) AT-61 The result of the Debtor validation (e-mandate specific)AT-Mxx For future use For future use

Inquiry detailsAT-80 The SCT inquiry reason code AT-Q01AT-81 The specific SCT inquiry reference of the Participant initiating the SCT inquiry AT-Q02AT-82 Additional Information to AT-80 SCT inquiry reason code AT-Q03AT-83 Non-receipt of the SEPA Credit Transfer/ non-execution due to regulatory reason AT-Q04AT-84 New value date of the SEPA Credit Transfer based on the new settlement date AT-Q05AT-85 The interest compensation recovered by the Beneficiary Bank from the Originator Bank AT-Q06AT-86 Fee for handling the SCT inquiry AT-Q07For future use AT-Qxx

Generic r-transaction details AT-R1 The type of “R” message AT-R1 The type of “R” message AT-R01 AT-R1 Type of “R” message AT-R1 Type of “R” messageAT-R2 The identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

AT-R2 The identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message AT-R02 AT-R2 Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message AT-R2 Identification of the type of party initiating the “R” message

AT-R3 The reason code for non-acceptance of the SEPA Credit Transfer AT-R3 The reason code for non-acceptance of the SCT Inst AT-R03 AT-R3 The reason code for non-acceptance AT-R3 The reason code for non-acceptanceAT-R5 The specific reference of the Bank initiating the Reject/Return AT-R4 The specific reference of the party initiating the Reject AT-R04

AT-R5 Specific reference of the bank initiating the Reject/Return/Refund for Reject/Return/Refund.

AT-R5 The Specific reference of the bank initiating the Reject/Return for Reject/Return.

AT-R4 The Settlement Date for the Return AT-R05AT-R4 The Settlement Date for the Return or Refund instruction (DS-05) or the Reversal (DS-07)

AT-R4 The Settlement Date for the Return instruction (DS-05) or the Reversal (DS-07)

AT-R06AT-R6 The Refund compensation recovered by the Debtor Bank from the Creditor Bank

AT-R07 AT-R8 The amount of the Interchange Fee AT-R8 The amount of the Interchange FeeFor future use For future use AT-R08 For future use For future use

AT-R09AT-R10

#16-All Schemes-EPC-attribute alignment table 3/5

Page 115: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

SCT SCT Inst Proposed AT n° SDD Core SDD B2B

AT-R11AT-R12AT-R13AT-R14AT-R15AT-R16AT-R17AT-R18AT-R19AT-R20

r-tx - Claim unauth. tx. (SDD Core) // inquiry procedure (SDD B2B only - could also be part of inquiry group)

AT-R21 AT-45 The Debtor Bank’s reference of the request AT-45 The Debtor Bank’s reference of the requestAT-R22 AT-46 The Refund request type code AT-R23 AT-47 The Date of receipt of the request by the Debtor Bank AT-47 The Date of receipt of the request by the Debtor BankAT-R24 AT-48 The Date of sending the request by the Debtor Bank AT-48 The Date of sending the request by the Debtor BankAT-R25 AT-49 The Name of the Debtor Bank AT-49 The Name of the Debtor BankAT-R26 AT-50 The Debtor Bank contact details AT-50 The Debtor Bank contact details

AT-R27AT-51 The email address or fax number of the Debtor Bank where the copy of the Mandate should be sent

AT-51 The email address or fax number of the Debtor Bank where the response should be sent

AT-R28AT-52 The indication that a confirmation of the receipt of the request by the Creditor Bank is requested (yes/no)

AT-52 The indication that a confirmation of the receipt of the request by the Creditor Bank is requested (yes/no)

AT-R29 AT-53 The Debit date of the Collection AT-53 The Debit date of the CollectionAT-R30 AT-54 The latest Collection Date AT-54 The latest Collection DateAT-R31 AT-55 The Cancellation DateAT-R32 AT-56 The Reference of the response of the Creditor AT-56 The Reference of the response of the CreditorAT-R33 AT-57 The Response type codes AT-57 The Response type codes AT-R34 For future use For future useAT-R35AT-R36AT-R37AT-R38AT-R39AT-R40

SDD reversal detailsAT-R41 AT-31 The Reversal reason code AT-31 The Reversal reason codeAT-R42 AT-44 The amount of the Reversal in euro AT-44 The amount of the Reversal in euro

AT-R43 AT-R7 The specific reference of the Creditor Bank for the Reversal AT-R7 The specific reference of the Creditor Bank for the ReversalAT-R44 For future use For future useAT-R45AT-R46AT-R47AT-R48AT-R49AT-R50

Recall and related Response AT-48 The Recall reason code AT-48 The Recall reason code AT-R50AT-49 Additional Information to AT-48 The Recall reason code

AT-49 Additional Information to AT-48 The Recall reason code AT-R51

AT-R7 The specific reference of the Bank initiating the Recall AT-R6 The specific reference of the bank initiating the Recall AT-R52AT-46 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Recall in euro

AT-46 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Recall in euro AT-R53

AT-47 The fee for the positive answer to the Recall in euro AT-47 The fee for the positive answer to the Recall in euro AT-R54

#16-All Schemes-EPC-attribute alignment table 4/5

Page 116: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

SCT SCT Inst Proposed AT n° SDD Core SDD B2B

AT-R6 The Reason code for non-acceptance of the Recall AT-R5 The Reason code for non-acceptance of the Recall AT-R55AT-R8 The Settlement Date for the positive Answer to the Recall

AT-R7 The Settlement Date for the positive Answer to the Recall AT-R56

For future use For future use AT-R57AT-R58AT-R59AT-R60AT-R61AT-R62AT-R63AT-R64AT-R65AT-R66AT-R67AT-R68AT-R69AT-R70

RFRO and related ResponseAT-50 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator

AT-52 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator AT-R71

AT-51 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator

AT-53 The specific reference of the Originator Bank for the Request for Recall by the Originator AT-R72

AT-52 Additional Information to AT-50 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator

AT-54 Additional Information to AT-52 Reason code for the Request for Recall by the Originator AT-R73

AT-53 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator in euro

AT-55 The returned amount of the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator in euro AT-R74

AT-54 The settlement date for the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator

AT-56 The Settlement Date for the positive answer to the Request for Recall by the Originator AT-R75

AT-55 Reason code for non-acceptance of the Request for Recall by the Originator

AT-57 Reason code for non-acceptance of the Request for Recall by the Originator AT-R76

AT-56 Fee for the positive response to a Request for Recall by the Originator in euro

AT-58 Fee for the positive response to a Request for Recall by the Originator in euro AT-R77

AT-57 Provision of all information available to file a legal claim to recover the funds in case of reason code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’

AT-59 Provision of all information available to file a legal claim to recover the funds in case of reason code ‘wrong unique identifier of the Beneficiary account’ AT-R78

#16-All Schemes-EPC-attribute alignment table 5/5

Page 117: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 5

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 20 - migration to 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 118: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#20 -All schemes-EPC-migration to 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 5

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): November 2022.

1.2. Description of the change request: For the launch of the various EPC SEPA payment schemes in January 2008, November 2009 and November 2017, the EPC selected the 2009 version of the ISO 20022 XML-based messaging standard.

The EPC notes new payment market developments for which the 2009 version of the ISO standard is not suitable to support: • All schemes: need for a standard structured delivery of the address details about the payer

and the payee. The current lack of such structured address details hinders a more automated screening of SEPA transactions to or from non-EEA SEPA-country based scheme participants. The capacity of characters for these fields under the 2009 version also reaches its limits in certain payment situations.

• Both SCT schemes: no possibility to support the development of Request-to-Pay (RTP) services and the use of proxy identifiers (e.g., phone number, e-mail address) in the customer-to-bank (C2B) space. In case the EPC develops a framework or a dedicated rulebook to support RTP, the selected messages will be based on the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard.

• SCT Inst scheme: o The timestamp data element for an SCT Inst payment transaction message supports only

the provision of a future date. The possibility to submit SCT Inst instructions with a combination of a future execution date and time can be interesting for certain customers or in certain use cases.

o The 2009 version is not rich enough in data elements and element characteristics to support the uptake of the SCT Inst scheme at different Point-of-Interaction use cases between payers and payees.

Throughout the years, the EPC SEPA payment schemes cover already a variety of ISO 20022 versions for messages between these payment schemes. The table below summarises the actual variety.

Page 119: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#20 -All schemes-EPC-migration to 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 5

* Not (yet) included in the SCT schemes but the EPC’s 2018 change request for this message was accepted by ISO.

If the future rulebooks would include new business procedures or existing procedures could be amended or extended, messages based on a more recent ISO 20022 version may have to be used adding further variety.

The EPC proposes to migrate the four schemes to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard as it is suitable to support all above-mentioned new payment features and to align all current rulebook messages on one and the same ISO 20022 version.

The EPC notes the decision by several market infrastructures to migrate to the ISO 20022 standard i.e. Target2 from Eurosystem and EURO1 from EBA Clearing by November 2021 and the global migration of SWIFT from its FIN messages to the ISO 20022 standard starting from November 2021 until November 2025. These infrastructures have decided to use the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard.

The use of the same version of the ISO 20022 standard for mass-volume SEPA payments, high-value euro payments and international payments facilitates the interoperability between the various payment schemes and platforms for the EPC SEPA payment scheme participants and their (mainly corporate) customers.

However, the EPC proposes to migrate the four schemes as of November 2022 to the 2019 version. This migration date allows the EPC SEPA payment scheme participants to spread the workload. Otherwise, they would have to change three (possibly four) different payment systems or platforms by November 2021: the SCT and SDD payment engines, the high-value payment systems connected to Target2 (ECB) and EURO1 (EBA Clearing) and possibly the international payment systems connected to the SWIFT network. Handling the ISO version migration for the four EPC SEPA payment schemes by November 2021 on top of those planned migrations, would be a huge challenge.

Subject to a positive public consultation outcome on this change request, the EPC will formally communicate this ISO version migration in November 2020 when publishing the 2021 EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks and the related Implementation Guidelines (IGs).

The IGs published in November 2020 will still be predominantly1 based on the 2009 version of ISO 20022 and will be applicable from November 2021 to November 2022. A second set of 2021 IGs

1 Some messages described in the IGs are based on a more recent version of ISO 20022 (see table above).

Page 120: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#20 -All schemes-EPC-migration to 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 5

will be published latest in the second quarter of 2021. This second cluster of the mandatory C2B and interbank IGs will then be based on the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard.

The ISO version migration will be a big-bang migration, i.e. no transitional period will be foreseen. This means that all EPC SEPA payment scheme participants offering ISO 20022 message-based payment services to their customers, must then support the 2019 version as of November 2022.

On the other hand, the (corporate) customers may still use another ISO version to exchange SEPA transactions in an XML format with their PSPs if so bilaterally agreed.

The annex of this change request covers a high-level gap analysis between the 2009 and the 2019 pain., pacs. and camt. messages used in the four EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks.

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Yes. Although this change request does not affect any change in the business rules or in the obligations of the scheme participants, all EPC SEPA payment scheme participants must migrate to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messages used in the interbank space.

Those scheme participants that also offer ISO 20022 message-based payment services to their customers, must migrate to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messages used in the customer-to-bank space.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes. See point 1.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Yes. See point 1.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes. All pain., pacs. and camt. messages currently used in the four EPC SEPA payment schemes will migrate to the 2019 version of the ISO 20022 standard.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 121: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#20 -All schemes-EPC-migration to 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 5

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It allows the EPC to launch much faster new/ adapted ISO messages, specific fields and/or usage rules provided by a newer ISO version which can add value for scheme participants and/or payment end users. This change request maintains the attractiveness and the relevance of the four EPC SEPA payment schemes for the next years.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. The EPC is not in the possibility to make this assessment. On the other hand, the costs and benefits related to the efforts to move along with the migration of the market infrastructures Target2, EURO1 and SWIFT MT to the ISO 20022 standard can provide some guidance.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. This change request maintains the attractiveness and the relevance of the four EPC SEPA payment schemes for the next years.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. In the run-up to the SEPA migration during the period 2012-2014, all financial institutions offering euro-denominated payment services managed to migrate their legacy schemes to ISO 2002 message-based payment schemes.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 122: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Gap Analysis ISO 20022 Message Version Migration (2009 vs 2019)

Annex to change request #20 “EPC-migration to 2019 version of the ISO 20022 messaging standard

For Internal use Pres EPC010-20

Page 123: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

2

Inclusion of a Legal Entity identifier (LEI) as an alternative identifier for a ‘non-private’ party (for example as analternative to BICFI). Available under ‘Financial institution ID’, ‘Organisation ID and ‘Branch ID’. EPC assessment:

• This has no impact on the rulebook attributes (e.g. Originator/Beneficiary Identification Code) because the LEI can alreadybe provided in the 2009 message version under ‘Other’ (‘Identification’ and ‘Scheme Name’).

• In case of migration to the 2019 message version, this could however introduce two different ways to instruct the LEIdepending on the version of the C2B message received and hence could result in two different ways to transport the LEI inthe inter-PSP sphere (either in dedicated LEI element or in ‘Other’).

BIC data elements change: “BIC or BEI” (2009) replaced by “ANYBIC” (2019) and “BIC” (2009) replaced by “BICFI”(2019). EPC assessment: This is already the case in some messages used in the current implementation guidelines (IGs)

(e.g. pacs.028 used as a request for a status update on a Recall and camt.027/camt.08 used for inquiry relatedmessages).

Cardinality of “Service Level” element: Maximum 1 occurrence in version 2009 versus “n” occurrences in version2019 EPC assessment: No immediate impact (IGs can limit to 1 occurrence) but could be potentially used in the future.Split between ‘Party’ and ‘Agent’ in R-messages (for example in elements ‘Debtor’ and ‘Creditor’ under ‘OriginalTransaction Reference’): ‘Party’ specifies the identification of a person or an organisation, ‘Agent’ specifies theidentification of a financial institution. EPC assessment: Only ‘Party’ should be used in the IGs.

Main differences in ISO 20022 messages used in SEPA (1/3)

Page 124: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

3

Possibility to use a proxy for the identification of an account.

EPC assessment: The proxy can only be provided in addition to the usual account identification (i.e. IBAN).This could be useful in the future to accommodate developments in other workstreams.

Extension of the structured elements of ‘postal address’.

EPC assessment: Currently only one of those i.e. ‘country code’ is used (besides the unstructured addresslines). In case of a future alignment to market (e.g. CBPR+) requirements or of a legal need to structure theaddress, then the 2019 ISO message version would be more complete than the 2009 ISO message version.

Additional sub-elements under data element ‘contact details’: Email purpose; job title; responsibility;department + contact details in another form (e.g.: preferred method used to reach the contact).

EPC assessment: Contact details are currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

New sub-element ‘UETR’ (’Unique End-to-End Transaction Reference’, Universally unique identifier toprovide an end-to-end reference of a payment transaction) under ‘Payment Identification’ (note: ‘OriginalUETR’ in reject messages).

This comes from the SWIFT Global Payment Initiative (GPI), i.e. the correspondent banking area.

Used both for customers’ as well as for banks’ processes.

EPC assessment: Data elements ‘End-to-End ID’ and ‘Transaction ID’ used in SEPA continue to exist in the2019 message version of ISO 20022. In the future UETR could potentially replace the aforementioned IDs.

Main differences in ISO 20022 messages used in SEPA (2/3)

Page 125: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

4

Extension of element ‘Structured’ under ‘Remittance Information’ including e.g.: New sub-element ‘Tax Remittance’: provides remittance information about a payment made for tax-related

purposes. New sub-element ‘Garnishment Remittance’: provides remittance information about a payment made for

garnishment-related purposes. EPC assessment: Migrating to the 2019 message version of ISO 20022 could have an impact on the

Extended Remittance Information (ERI) option if all or part of the new sub-elements are to be added to theIGs. This needs to be further assessed.

Modification of already existing sub-elements in element ‘Structured’ under ‘Remittance Information’ (e.g.Discount applied amount now contains type and amount) EPC assessment: Migrating to the 2019 message version of ISO 20022 will have a minor impact on ERI if all

or part of the new sub-elements are to be added to the IGs.Supplementary data (information that cannot be captured in the structured elements and/or any otherspecific block). EPC assessment: This is already available in the request for status update (pacs.028) message as well as the

inquiry related messages (included in the current IGs) but it is currently not used in the SEPA schemes.Externalisation of several code lists. EPC assessment: This simplifies the process for requesting new codes.

Main differences in ISO 20022 messages used in SEPA (3/3)

Page 126: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

5

New data element ‘Original Group Information’ under ‘Transaction Information and Status’ (Point topoint reference, as assigned by the original instructing party, to unambiguously identify the originalmessage).

EPC assessment: : This could allow to have one pacs.002 (reject) message relating to several pacs.003(interbank collection) or pacs.008 (interbank payment) messages.

New data element ‘Effective interbank Settlement date’ under ‘Transaction Information and Status’ (Dateand time at which a transaction is completed and cleared, that is, payment is effected).

EPC assessment: : Currently not relevant in the SEPA schemes as pacs.002 is only used as a reject (and asa positive/negative confirmation in the context of SCT Inst) in the IGs.

Charges information: data element ‘Party’ replaced by ‘Agent’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Main differences for pacs.002 only

Page 127: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

6

New data elements (under ‘Direct Debit Transaction Info’): ‘Settlement Priority’ (Indicator of the urgency ororder of importance that the instructing party would like the instructed party to apply to the processing ofthe settlement instruction) and ‘Settlement Time Indication’ (Provides information on the occurredsettlement time(s) of the payment transaction).

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Charges information: data element ‘Party’ replaced by ‘Agent’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Extension of data element ‘Remittance location details’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Main differences for pacs.003 only

Page 128: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

7

New sub-elements under ‘Transaction Information’ (i.e. info concerning the original transaction to which thereturn message refers): ‘Original Interbank Settlement Date’, ‘Settlement Priority’, ‘Settlement TimeIndication’ and ‘Original Clearing System Reference’. Moreover a new block ‘Return Chain’, which provides allparties involved in a return transaction, has also been added.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

New sub-element ‘Date Time’ under ‘Requested Execution Date’ (to specify the execution time in addition toexecution date).

EPC assessment: No impact on the current return message.

Extension of data elements ‘Original Frequency’ and ‘Frequency’ (under ‘Mandate Related Info’)

EPC assessment: Only applicable to SDD but currently not used in the SDD schemes.

Main differences for pacs.004 only

Page 129: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

8

Data element ‘Original Group Information’ has been made optional

EPC assessment: This element is used in the IGs and hence a usage rule will need to be added to indicatethat this element is mandatory.

New sub-elements under ‘Transaction Information’: ‘Original Group Information’, ‘Settlement Priority’,‘Settlement Time Indication’

EPC assessment: Could allow to have one pacs.007 (reversal) message relating to several pacs.003(interbank collection) messages.

New sub-element ‘Date Time’ under ‘Requested Execution Date’ (To specify the execution time in addition toexecution date).

EPC assessment: No impact in the context of SDD.

Extension of data elements ‘Original Frequency’ and ‘Frequency’ (under ‘Mandate Related Info’) :

EPC assessment: Only applicable to SDD but currently not used in the SDD schemes.

Main differences for pacs.007 only

Page 130: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

9

Charges information: data element ‘Party’ replaced by ‘Agent’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes because of “SLEV” (Following Service Level -Charges are to be applied following the rules agreed in the service level and/or scheme.)

Extension of data element ‘Remittance location details’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

New data element ‘Tax’ under ‘Credit Transfer Transaction Information’: to provides details on tax (e.g.creditor and debtor side of the tax payment; amount; due date;).

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes

Main differences for pacs.008 only

Main differences for pacs.028 onlyNo specific changes besides the ones listed in the general section (i.e. “Main differences in ISO 20022messages used in SEPA”). Moreover, the EPC already uses the 2017 message version of the pacs.028.

Page 131: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

10

New sub-element ‘Date Time’ under ‘Requested Execution Date’ (To specify the execution time in addition toexecution date). EPC assessment: This could be useful in the context of SCT Inst.New data element ‘Instruction for Debtor Agent’ under ‘Payment Information’ (Further information relatedto the processing of the payment instruction, that may need to be acted upon by the debtor agent,depending on agreement between debtor and the debtor agent). EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes as covered by data element ‘Category Purpose’.Extension of data element ‘Remittance location details’. EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Main differences for pain.001 only

Main differences for pain.002 onlyCharges information: data element ‘Party’ replaced by ‘Agent’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

New data element ‘Tracker data’ under ‘Transaction Information and Status’ (Provides information on thetracking of the interbank transaction related to the payment).

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Page 132: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

11

Main differences for pain.007 onlyElement ‘Batch Booking’ under ‘Group Header’ has been removed in the 2019 version

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

New sub-elements ‘Date’ & ‘Date Time’ under ‘Requested Execution Date’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the context of SDD.

Extension of data elements ‘Original Frequency’ and ‘Frequency’ (under ‘Mandate Related Info’)

EPC assessment: Only applicable to SDD but currently not used in the SDD schemes.

Main differences for pain.008 onlyExtension of data element ‘Remittance location details’.

EPC assessment: Currently not used in the SEPA schemes.

Page 133: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

12

Extension of data element ‘Resolution Related Information’ (e.g. under ‘Transaction Information AndStatus’: Sub-elements ‘End-To-End Id’, ‘Transaction ID’, ‘Compensation’ and ‘Charges’ have been included). EPC assessment: Not needed for SEPA schemes because information is already available in other elements.

(Note: The 2018 ISO message version of camt.029 is already used for a positive and negative response toSCT inquiry messages)

Inclusion of data elements ‘Modification Details’ and ‘Claim Non Receipt Details’ EPC assessment: This inclusion was requested by the EPC to accommodate SCT inquiry messages.‘Original Next agent’ (under Claim Non Receipt Details) is no longer mandatory in the 2019 version: EPC assessment: This element is used in the positive response (based on the 2018 message version of

camt.029) to a Claim Non-receipt and hence a usage rule will need to be included to keep the elementmandatory.

Extension of data elements ‘Original Frequency’ and ‘Frequency’ (under ‘Mandate Related Info’) : EPC assessment: Not applicable to SCT/SCT Inst as related to mandates.

Main differences for camt.029 only

Main differences for camt.056 onlyExtension of data elements ‘Original Frequency’ and ‘Frequency’ (under ‘Mandate Related Info’) :

EPC assessment: Not applicable to SCT/SCT Inst as related to mandates.

Page 134: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 5

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: #23 - SCT and SCT Inst-Inclusion of flowcharts for RFRO procedure Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 135: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#23 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Inclusion of flowcharts for RFRO procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 5

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT and SCT Inst rulebooks.

1.2. Description of the change request: The suggestion is to add flowcharts to explain in a schematic way the procedural steps to be followed by the Originator Bank and the Beneficiary Bank when they receive a Request for Recall by the Originator (RFRO). The flowcharts below show the RFRO procedure in the SCT and the SCT Inst scheme rulebook. This change request does not cover any concrete changes to the procedural steps themselves.

Proposed RFRO flowchart for SCT rulebook

Page 136: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#23 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Inclusion of flowcharts for RFRO procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 5

Proposed RFRO flowchart for SCT Inst rulebook

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

No. Only the inclusion of flowcharts is proposed to better explain the RFRO process.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

No. No concrete changes to the procedural RFRO steps themselves.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No.

Page 137: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#23 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Inclusion of flowcharts for RFRO procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 5

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

No.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 138: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#23 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Inclusion of flowcharts for RFRO procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 5

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It further clarifies in a schematic format what steps need to be respected when handling the RFRO procedure.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. Not necessary.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Not applicable. There are no concrete changes to the procedural RFRO steps themselves.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES

Page 139: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 5

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Scheme Evolution and Maintenance Working Group (SEMWG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: # 26 - Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry

procedure Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 02 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 140: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#26 -SCT-EPC-Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 5

1. General Description of the Change Request 1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): 21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of the 2021 SCT rulebook.

1.2. Description of the change request: Under the section 4.4.1, the SCT rulebook allows the Beneficiary Bank to receive interest compensation when the cause for an SCT inquiry “Claim for Value Date Correction” does not lie within the responsibility of the Beneficiary Bank.

Furthermore, the section 4.4.2 allows the Beneficiary Bank to charge a fee to the Originator Bank for handling the SCT inquiry (irrespective if it is a “Claim for Value Date Correction” or “Claim of Non-Receipt”).

Important note: the 2020 change request item # 14 proposes that the Beneficiary Bank is allowed to charge a fee to the Originator Bank for handling the SCT inquiry only in case of a positive response to an SCT inquiry for the reasons ‘Claim of Non-Receipt’ and ‘Claim for Value Date Correction’.

The SCT rulebook does not specify how the payment of such SCT inquiry fees and/or interest compensation must be settled between the Originator bank and the Beneficiary Bank.

This change request introduces a new dataset DS-11 and relies on the ISO 20022 message pacs.008 (FIToFICustomerCreditTransfer). It allows the SCT scheme participants to settle SCT inquiry-related fees and interest compensation amounts in a uniform way across SEPA. The EPC proposes to use the 2009 version of the pacs.008 message to be in sync with the currently used version of the pacs.008 message.

The proposed pacs.008 message will settle the SCT inquiry fees and/or interest compensation for a single SCT inquiry case only. This allows the concerned SCT scheme participants to do an item-per-item reconciliation between a fee and/or interest compensation payment and the concerned SCT inquiry case. Note: the Beneficiary Bank may wish that the SCT inquiry fees and interest compensation are paid in two separate pacs.008 messages or in a single pacs.008 message. If the change request is supported, the EPC will request a new category purpose code for the latter case.

In case this change request is retained for inclusion in the 2021 SCT rulebook, the DS-11 can be applied only for SCT inquiry cases with a Creation Date and Time earliest as of 21 November 2021.

A. Changes to the SCT rulebook section

New section:

4.4.3 Payment of SCT inquiry related fees and/or interest compensation The Originator Bank settles such payments using the requirements defined in DS-11 (see section 4.5.11).

Page 141: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#26 -SCT-EPC-Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 5

B. Inclusion of the new dataset DS-11 4.5.11 DS-11 Interbank Fee and/or Compensation Payment Dataset

Identification: DS-11 Name: Interbank Fee and/or Compensation Payment Dataset Attributes contained:

• AT-06 BIC of the Originator Bank • AT-23 BIC the Beneficiary Bank • (new) AT-AA The IBAN of the account of the Beneficiary Bank • (new) AT-AB Reference of the Beneficiary Bank for interbank fee and/or

compensation payment • (new) AT-AC Settlement date of the interbank fee and/or compensation

amount • AT-81 The specific SCT Inquiry reference of the Participant initiating the SCT

inquiry • AT-86 Fee for handling the SCT inquiry • AT-85 The interest compensation recovered by the Beneficiary Bank from

the Originator Bank • (new) AT-AD Category purpose of the interbank fee and/or compensation

payment • AT-40 The identification code of the Scheme

Technical characteristics:

(None identified)

Rules applied: The dataset settles the SCT inquiry fees and/or interest compensation for a single SCT inquiry case only. This allows the concerned SCT scheme participants to do an item-per-item reconciliation between a fee and/or interest compensation payment and the concerned SCT inquiry case.

C. Creation of new attributes

Identification: AT-AA Name: The IBAN of the account of the Beneficiary Bank Description: The International Bank Account Number used to uniquely identify the account

of a financial institution. The ISO standard 13616 applies. The concerned account is to be credited with the fees and/or compensation related to the handling of a single SCT inquiry case.

Identification: AT-AB Name: Reference of the Beneficiary Bank for interbank fee and/or compensation

payment Description: The reference of the Interbank Fee and Compensation Payment given by the

Beneficiary Bank and relates to the handling of a single SCT inquiry case.

Page 142: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#26 -SCT-EPC-Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 5

Identification: AT-AC Name: Settlement date of the interbank fee and/or compensation amount Description: The date on which obligations with respect to the fees and/or compensation

related to the handling of a single SCT inquiry case between Originator Bank and Beneficiary Bank, are discharged.

Identification: AT-AD Name: Category purpose of the interbank fee and/or compensation payment Description: The category purpose of the interbank fee and/or compensation payment is

information on the high-level nature of such payment. Value range: All appropriate codes part of the ISO standard are accepted.

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Yes. This change request introduces a new business process in the SCT rulebook.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes. All SCT scheme participants will have to implement the initiation, the acceptance and processing of a new populated ISO 20022 message pacs.008 for the payment of fees and/or interest compensation.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Yes. The selected ISO 20022 message will be based on the same version used for normal SCT transactions, i.e. pacs.008 message version 2009 (pacs.008.001.02).

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 143: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#26 -SCT-EPC-Payment of fees or interest compensation under the SCT inquiry procedure

www.epc-cep.eu 5 / 5

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

The last stage of an SCT inquiry process i.e. the payment of any fees and interest compensation could be done through ISO 20022 messages as well. Furthermore, SCT scheme participants already settle possible charges for Recalls and Request For Recall by the Originator (RFRO) via ISO 20022 messages since several years.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO. On the other hand, each SCT scheme participant will be able to deal with all SCT inquiry-related phases on a single messaging platform with each other SCT scheme participant.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. Please refer to the answer for the first question.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES. Please refer to the answer for the second question.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES. The clearing and settlement mechanisms used by the SCT scheme participants already support the SCT inquiry procedure since November 2019. The pacs.008 message version used is the same as for standard SCT transactions.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES

Page 144: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

EPC Request-to-Pay Multi-stakeholder Group (RTP MSG)

Organisation: EPC

Address: Cours St. Michel 30A, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

Contact details:

Valentin Vlad

[email protected]

Your reference:

NA

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 03/12/2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 145: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#27 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Linking an SCT or SCT Inst trx with a preceding Request-To-Pay message 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

November 2020, effective in November 2021.

1.2 Description of the change request:

In November 2019, the RTP MSG released a deliverable according to its mandate, namely the “specifications for a standardisation framework for the Request-to-Pay”. The corresponding document has been published on the EPC Website at this address: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/guidance-documents/request-pay-specifications-standardisation-framework

In addition to the development of an RTP scheme, separate from the SEPA payment schemes, which is the main workstream proposed for the 2020 cycle, the RTP MSG identified 2 change requests (CRs) that should be applied to the payment schemes to facilitate the support for the RTP.

This template concerns one of the CRs, applicable to the SCT and the SCT Inst schemes.

The RTP specifications indicates at the chapter 10 the scope of this CR as follows:

“EPC internal Change Requests to the SCT and SCT Inst payment schemes to allow linking an SCT or SCT Inst transaction with a preceding RTP. This may include corresponding Change Requests to ISO 20022 if the underlying ISO messages should be updated”

As a background to this request, the Request-to-Pay message is foreseen as a basis for the RTP scheme. It is intended to be developed from the ISO 20022 message pain.013 (CreditorPaymentActivationRequest), version 07 published in February 2019 (pain.013.001.07). The RTP is sent by the Creditor sending party to the Debtor receiving party. The finality of an RTP is to trigger a payment initiation by SCT or SCT Inst from the Debtor (Originator) to the Creditor (Beneficiary).

The rationale behind this CR is that the parties involved in the creation and processing of the SCT or SCT Inst based payments, would need to make a distinction between an SCT or SCT Inst instruction resulting from the receipt and acceptance of an RTP, and other SCT or SCT Inst “standalone” instructions:

- The Originator and the Originator Bank would need to keep a trace of the preceding RTP in the SCT or SCT Inst instructions, to facilitate the retrieval of the business transaction for which the payment is done.

- The Beneficiary and the Beneficiary Bank would need to reconcile the RTP sent with the payment received. They can use a reference to the RTP in the payment transaction to distinguish RTP-initiated SCT or SCT Inst transactions from other SCT or SCT Inst transactions. This would limit the lookup into RTP data stores to the ones already identified as resulting from RTPs.

Therefore, this CR requires minor updates to the following existing attributes:

- AT-44 ‘The purpose of the SCT/SCT Inst Instruction’ to flag that an SCT or SCT Inst instruction/transaction results from an RTP. New purpose code will need to be requested to ISO.

Page 146: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#27 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Linking an SCT or SCT Inst trx with a preceding Request-To-Pay message 3

- Extend the description of AT-41 ‘Originator reference of the SCT/SCT Inst instruction’: “In case the SCT/SCT Inst initiation is related to a received RTP message, this originator reference is the “AT” used for the end-to-end ID in the RTP message”.

- AT-45 ‘Category purpose of the SCT/SCT Inst Instruction’ to inform the Originator Bank whether a notification (of the execution) to the Beneficiary is required. A new category purpose code will need to be requested to ISO.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

No impact if no new attributes are added.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

No impact if no new attributes are added.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Impact on the C2B and interbank IGs.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

A variant

Page 147: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#27 -SCT and SCT Inst-EPC-Linking an SCT or SCT Inst trx with a preceding Request-To-Pay message 4

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes. Originator- and Beneficiary entities using the future RTP scheme may be customers of any PSP in SEPA for processing SCT/SCT Inst payments.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No. However it is expected that processing burden is lightened, especially on the Beneficiary Bank side, as only the SCT/SCT Inst related to RTPs would be selected for reconciliation.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes, it is an element of the Request-to-Pay standardisation initiative, which fits into the EPC goal of supporting innovation in electronic payments in Europe.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes. Only a minor impact.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes, it has no impact on scheme functions or data elements enabling interoperability.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes, the future RTP scheme is in close relation with the SCT and SCT Inst schemes, which are enablers of the finality of the RTP, the payment initiation.

Page 148: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

EPC Request-to-Pay Multi-stakeholder Group (RTP MSG)

Organisation: EPC

Address: Cours St. Michel 30A, 1040 Brussels, Belgium

Contact details:

Valentin Vlad

[email protected]

Your reference:

NA

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 03/12/2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 149: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

For publication in November 2020, effective in November 2021.

1.2 Description of the change request:

In November 2019, the RTP MSG released a deliverable according to its mandate, namely the “specifications for a standardisation framework for the Request-to-Pay”. The corresponding document has been published on the EPC Website at this address: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/guidance-documents/request-pay-specifications-standardisation-framework

In addition to the development of an RTP scheme, separate from the SEPA payment schemes, which is the main workstream proposed for the 2020 cycle, the RTP MSG identified 2 change requests (CRs) that should be applied to the payment schemes to facilitate the support for the RTP.

This template concerns one of the CRs, applicable to the SCT scheme only.

The RTP specifications indicates at the chapter 10 the scope of this CR as follows:

“EPC internal Change Request to the SCT payment scheme to implement the special function “Notification to the payee of execution of payment instruction”. It will be assessed whether this function should be part of SCT scheme or of the RTP framework.”

The development of the RTP scheme is expected to start in January 2020 on the basis of the above-mentioned specifications. The scope of the 1st release of the scheme includes the “core” Request-to-Pay message and a number of associated basic features.

As a background, the Request-to-Pay message is intended to be developed from the ISO 20022 message pain.013 (CreditorPaymentActivationRequest), version 07 published in February 2019 (pain.013.001.07). The RTP is sent by the Creditor sending party to the Debtor receiving party. The finality of an RTP is to trigger a payment initiation by SCT from the Debtor (Originator) to the Creditor (Beneficiary).

The “Notification to the payee of execution of payment instruction“ has been identified among the basic features in the scope of the first release.

the new Notification message under the SCT scheme will allows the Originator Bank to inform in real-time the Beneficiary Bank (so indirectly the Beneficiary) that a payment instruction has been executed.

It would support RTP use-cases requiring a level of certainty that the SCT payment has been successfully executed. During the analysis for elaborating the specifications, it has been agreed that in some cases – especially in online commerce – it would be sufficient to merchants to know that an SCT-based payment has been executed by the bank of the consumer so that subsequent business processes such as delivery of goods can be initiated. It was admitted that there is a risk that the payment is rejected in the interbank space, but it was considered that a functionality allowing to accept this risk would be useful.

(Note: under the SCT Inst scheme, such notification is not necessary because the real-time aspect is already covered by the “instant” characteristic of the SCT Inst scheme, whereby the instant receipt of funds, inherently includes the information that the payment has been executed by the Originator Bank).

Page 150: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

3

Therefore, the preliminary analysis indicated that this functionality could be implemented by a notification message having the following characteristics:

- The Originator Bank sends such notification after its successful execution of all SCT related actions (e.g., receipt and validation of instruction from the Debtor, validation of Beneficiary IBAN, reservation of funds) prior to sending the instruction as a transaction to the next party in the inter-bank space (e.g. a CSM);

- It is sent in real-time, regardless of the processing of the SCT instruction (batch, item-by-item, etc);

- It is sent only if the corresponding SCT results from an RTP, and if this RTP includes an indicator (“flag”) that the Notification is required by the Beneficiary. The identification of the corresponding RTP message and of the SCT instruction should be included in the Notification;

- It doesn’t require a response status message in return from the next party or from the beneficiary PSP. It can be considered as an “advice” message.

The CR includes the following items:

1. In the SCT Rulebook, update the SCT processing flow to include the Notification.

The processing flow PR-01 should include a new process step between the current steps both labelled “CT-01.03”: “Debit Originator Account” and “Settle, make CT available”. This process step could be named “Complete & forward Notification of CT execution following an RTP requiring a Notification to the Beneficiary Bank”

2. In the SCT Rulebook, addition of a new dataset - based on DS-02 (Interbank Payment dataset) - as follows:

Identification DS-11

Name Notification of SEPA Credit Transfer execution Dataset

Description Description of the minimum information that a Originator Bank needs to send in the notification message to the Beneficiary Bank.

Attributes 01 The IBAN of the account of the Originator

02 The name of the Originator

04 The amount of the SEPA Credit Transfer in euro

06 The BIC code of the Originator Bank

08 The name of the Originator Reference Party (Optional)

09 The identification code of the Originator Reference Party (Optional)

10 The Originator identification code (Optional)

20 The IBAN of the account of the Beneficiary

21 The name of the Beneficiary

23 The BIC code of the Beneficiary Bank

24 The Beneficiary identification code (Optional)

28 The name of the Beneficiary Reference Party (Optional)

29 The identification code of the Beneficiary Reference Party (Optional)

41 The Originator’s reference of the Credit Transfer Transaction

Page 151: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

4

43 The Originator Bank’s reference number of the SEPA Credit Transfer message

44 The purpose of the SEPA Credit Transfer (Optional)

45 The category purpose of the SEPA Credit Transfer (Optional)

(NEW) XX The identifier of the Request-To-Pay for which the SEPA Credit Transfer has been requested

As noted, a new attribute, AT-87 (RTP identifier) should be added.

3. In the SCT Interbank Implementation Guidelines:

The ISO 20022 message catalogue should be consulted to assess whether an existing message can be reused for this notification. After a preliminary check, it seems there is no such a suitable message in the current catalogue. Therefore, the creation of a new message should be foreseen, including the development of the required documentation – Business Justification, Message Definition Report – and work allocation for post-submission support tasks.

Once the corresponding ISO message is identified or created, the SCT Implementation Guidelines should be updated accordingly, to specify SCT scheme specific usage and implementation rules of this message.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

It should be assessed whether the proposed Notification should be included as a mandatory function in the SCT scheme or as an option to the Scheme.

As a mandatory function, it would be automatically available to any participant adhering to the SCT scheme and its implementation becomes mandatory as of the 2020 version becomes effective. However, because this function is related to the RTP scheme (whose development is expected to start in early 2020), it has been analysed to propose it as an option to the SCT scheme.

On the other hand, the decision should be based on the feasibility of the combination of the Creditor and Debtor providers‘ adherence to the RTP scheme with the adherence to the SCT scheme, under the principle that the Beneficiary and the Originator can use services of different providers for RTP and SCT.

The consequences are:

- A Beneficiary cannot use the Notification if the Beneficiary Bank doesn’t adhere to the option. Indeed, even if the RTP indicates that a Notification is required and the Originator Bank supports it, the Beneficiary Bank cannot process the Notification received from the Originator Bank.

- If an Originator uses different providers for RTP and SCT, the RTP provider of the Beneficiary or its CSM (Clearing and Settlement Mechanism) cannot know whether the Originator Bank adheres to the Notification option. Indeed, the IBAN of the Originator is not known when the RTP is sent, so the Originator Bank cannot be identified. If the Originator uses the same provider for the SCT and for the RTP (a PSP), this adherence can be verified and the RTP can be rejected by the CSM processing the RTP from the Beneficiary, with a reason code of type “Notification not supported by the Originator Bank”.

Page 152: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

5

These consequences may lead to the decision to include the Notification as mandatory in the SCT scheme. However, it would be used only by Originators initiating SCTs resulting from RTPs, and in which the Notification is marked as required.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

The Notification is sent by the Originator Bank, processed by intermediaries and CSMs, and forwarded to the Beneficiary Bank in real-time.

There is no need for status report message associated with the Notification.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Request for creation of new message needed if no suitable ISO 20022 message exists. Implementation rules to be provided in the IGs.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact if the Notification is included as a mandatory function in the SCT scheme.

If the Notification is included as an option to the SCT scheme:

• Include a mention that the Rulebook and IGs sections related to the Notification, are only binding for the Participants to the option

• Include a mention that if a PSP adheres to both the RTP scheme and the SCT scheme, it should also adhere to the Notification option.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

A variant

Page 153: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

6

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes. Future RTP scheme will also be a SEPA scheme and the Notification is a basic feature of the RTP scheme.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No. However it is expected that along with SCT Inst, SCT scheme is also used for use-cases requiring a certain level of certainty of payment.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes, it is an element of the Request-to-Pay standardisation initiative, which fits into the EPC goal of supporting innovation in electronic payments in Europe.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes, only one new message is foreseen, with an expected structure similar to existing messages.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes, it has no impact on schemes functions or data elements enabling interoperability.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes, the RTP future scheme is in close relation with the SCT scheme, which is an enabler for the finality of the RTP, the payment initiation. The alternative to implement the Notification in the RTP scheme was also analysed. As the underlying transaction for which the Notification is provided is a payment transaction, it was considered more suitable for the SCT scheme. Also, if the Notification was included in the RTP scheme, on the Debtor’s side an internal technical communication between the SCT processing systems and RTP processing system would be needed to inform the RTP system of the execution of an SCT. This additional technical step would add unnecessary complexity to the implementation.

Page 154: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Version 1.0

06 December2019

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected] C1 - Interne

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Géraldine Debost / Philippe Evenot

Organisation: FBF (French Banking Federation)

Address: 18 rue La Fayette

75009 Paris

Contact details:

[email protected] / [email protected]

Your reference:

Possibility of a partial return in case of positive response to a recall for fraud reason

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 06/12/2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 155: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#32 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Partial return for pos. response to a Recall for fraud 2

C1 - Interne

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of all 2021 SEPA scheme Rulebooks.

1.2 Description of the change request:

So far a beneficiary bank wishing to respond positively to a request for recall for fraud reason is obliged to send the positive response accordingly to the amount of the original transaction. Since, when the funds available on the beneficiary account are lower than the recalled amount, the positive response cannot be sent (please refer to AT-46) and the legitimate request of the originator bank is not fulfilled. In such situation, and according to the fraud case, some banks cannot be satisfied with a negative response (only possibility given by the current rules). Consequently and with the agreement of the originator bank they are acting out of the scope of the SEPA scheme (ie via swift messages) to solve the fraud issue which is bringing complexity in the reconciliation of the transaction with the initial SCT for both originator bank and beneficiary bank.

The Change Request aims to allow a positive response to a recall for fraud even though the returned amount is lower than the amount of the initial SCT; by doing this, it gives the originator the possibility to recover the funds remaining on the account of the beneficiary, should it be within the limit of the SCT amount.

This proposal is driven by the need to act urgently in case of suspicion of fraud on the beneficiary side (that is to say without waiting for the expiration of the 15 Banking Business Days period), and to monitor those informations as part of the scope of the SEPA Scheme.

This new fonctionnality will permit to complete the process of SCT life cycle as part of the scope of the SEPA Scheme.

This rule will apply only for recall for fraud reason (no need to act urgently for other reason codes) and will be optional. A beneficiary bank will still have the possibility to respond negatively in such a case.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Yes (recall processing).

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Page 156: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#32 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Partial return for pos. response to a Recall for fraud 3

C1 - Interne

Yes IGs might be impacted (new SEPA usage rules to define (or adapt) for “Returned Interbank Settlement Amount” (AT-46), and “Returned Instructed Amount”).

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (afding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 157: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#32 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Partial return for pos. response to a Recall for fraud 4

C1 - Interne

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. It increases the attractiveness of the SCT schemes and contributes to fraud mitigation.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 158: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected] C1 - Interne

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Géraldine Debost / Philippe Evenot

Organisation: FBF (French Banking Federation)

Address: 18 rue La Fayette

75009 Paris

Contact details:

[email protected] / [email protected]

Your reference:

Possibility for the Originator Bank to credit a technical account in case the SCT/SCT INST recalled amount has already been transferred back to the Originator account under PSD2

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 04/11/2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 159: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#33 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Possibility to credit a techn. account following a pos. response to a Recall 2

C1 - Interne

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of all 2021 SEPA scheme Rulebooks.

1.2 Description of the change request:

According to the Recall procedure, when the Beneficiary Bank can report a positive answer, the Originator Bank can not credit an account other than the account of the Originator.

The Change Request aims to allow to credit a technical account of the Originator Bank – instead of the account of the Originator – in case the Originator Bank has already transferred back the recalled amount to the account of the Originator under the PSD2 (article 73 : “In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the PSP refunds the payer the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction immediately”).

As a result, a double credit of the Originator’s account would be avoided.

The following change is proposed in CT-02.06 in the SCT and SCT INST Rulebooks :

CT-02.06 : “The Originator Bank credits the account of the Originator with the amount of the positive answer to the Recall (if the amount has not already been credited back to the Originator on a legal basis (e.g. article 73 of PSD2))”.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

No impact.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

No impact.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No impact.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

Page 160: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#33 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Possibility to credit a techn. account following a pos. response to a Recall 3

C1 - Interne

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

No.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Yes.

Page 161: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#33 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Possibility to credit a techn. account following a pos. response to a Recall 4

C1 - Interne

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES. It provides the Originator Bank with a greater process management flexibility in case the Beneficiary Bank gives a positive answer to a recall.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. Please refer to the answer to the first question.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 162: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected] C1 - Interne

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Géraldine Debost / Philippe Evenot

Organisation: FBF (French Banking Federation)

Address: 18 rue La Fayette

75009 Paris

Contact details:

[email protected] / [email protected]

Your reference:

Extension of the period for the Originator Bank to submit a request for recall

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 04/11/2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 163: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#34 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Extension of the period to submit a Recall 2

C1 - Interne

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

21 November 2021 – effectiveness date of all 2021 SEPA scheme Rulebooks.

1.2 Description of the change request:

The Originator Bank has currently 10 Banking Business Days following the execution date of a SCT or SCT INST transaction to initiate a Recall.

The Change Request aims to lengthen up to 15 Banking Business Days the period in which an Originator Bank could execute a recall, as fraudulent or duplicates or erroneous SCT & SCT INST transactions mostly concern bulks payments, and thus can take more than 10 Banking Business Days to handle.

A longer period is particularly needed in case of fraud : a retail client usually requests to cancel a SCT or SCT INST transaction once he has received his monthly statement and noticed a suspicious operation.

After these 10 Banking Business Days, it is not possible to fall back to the RFRO procedure because reasons to send out such a request can not be used to make a recall : “a RFRO can be initiated … for a reason other than duplicate sending, erroneous transactions and fraudulent instructions” (SCT Rulebook section 4.3.2.4 & SCT INST Rulebook section 4.3.2.3).

The period for the Originator Bank to request a recall, and the period for the Beneficiary Bank to answer to the recall, would then be the same (15 Banking Business Days).

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Light.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No impact.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No impact.

Page 164: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#34 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Extension of the period to submit a Recall 3

C1 - Interne

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Yes.

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

No.

Page 165: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#34 -SCT and SCT Inst-French Banking Federation-Extension of the period to submit a Recall 4

C1 - Interne

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

YES.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

NO.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

YES. It increases the attractiveness of the SCT (INST) schemes as Originator banks can handle more requests for recall.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

YES.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

YES.

Page 166: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

[email protected] by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Gill Murphy

Organisation: BPFI

Address: One Molesworth Street , Dublin 2

Contact details:

[email protected]

Your reference:

EPC_CR01_2020

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date:

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 167: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#35 -All schemes-BPFI-Align the rulebook with the Funds Transfer Regulation 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

Earliest possible release.

1.2 Description of the change request:

We ask for the scheme rulebooks to be amended to include provision for the application of Article 6 (2) and Article 8 (1) of Regulation 2015/847/EU.

Regulation 2015/847/EU (Funds Transfer Regulation) provides for the use of derogations by PSPs when processing SEPA DD’s and CT’s. Specifically the derogations under Article 6 (2), linked transactions up to €1000 and article 8 (1) the use of effective risk based procedures.

Whilst we appreciate that Article 8 (1), may not constitute a derogation per se, but rather a natural obligation of a PSP, it is our understanding that the rulebooks do not provide for a situation whereby a PSP may wish to invoke an approach that allows for the application of a risk based approach when processing transactions that are not considered ‘at risk’ and remain aligned to the overall AML and CTR obligations to ensure the traceability of payment transactions.

The background to this CR is the recent discussions that the Irish Industry has undertaken with our National Regulator during Brexit preparations.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Provides direct alignment between the Rulebooks and Regulation

2. Impact on the interbank space:

N/A

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

N/A

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

N/A

5. The nature of the change request:

A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Page 168: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#35 -All schemes-BPFI-Align the rulebook with the Funds Transfer Regulation 3

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

N/A

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes

Page 169: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Henrik Bergman

Organisation: Nordic Payments Council (NPC)

Address: Box 7603, 103 94 Stockholm, Sweden

Contact details:

[email protected]

Your reference:

-

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 19th of December 2019

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 170: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#39 -SCT and SCT Inst-NPC-Transmission of alias or proxy details about Originator and Beneficiary 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

As soon as possible.

1.2 Description of the change request:

Alias/proxy information provided for both Originator (optional as information) and Beneficiary.

This comment is regarding the possibility to forward the Originator’s and the Beneficiary alias or proxy from the Originator Bank to Beneficiary Bank to give opportunities for enhanced services to customers.

It is suggested to add two new attributes “Alias or Proxy of the Originator’s account” and “Alias or Proxy of the Beneficiary’s account”. By adding these attributes, the Rulebook will fulfil the requirement to support a number of existing alias- or proxy services. The reason for including the additional attribute in the interbank messaging is to allow the alias or proxy to be used by the Beneficiary Bank in order to supply alias or proxy in communication with the Beneficiary, if the alias or proxy service requires it.

The Alias or Proxy of the Originator’s account (Optional) and Alias or Proxy of the Beneficiary’s account (Optional) is suggested to be added to DS-01, DS-02 and DS-04.

For information: The change request has been accepted by the Nordic Payments Council for the first edition of the NPC CT rulebook.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

No major impact, additional optional information.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

No major impact, additional optional information.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

New fields need to be added for this information.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No legal impact.

5. The nature of the change request: b

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Page 171: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#39 -SCT and SCT Inst-NPC-Transmission of alias or proxy details about Originator and Beneficiary 3

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

This has been analysed positively for the Nordic market since it will enhance the information of a payment.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes, it will be implemented in the NPC schemes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes

Page 172: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

EPC045-18

Version 1.0

23 February 2018

[X] Public – [ ] Internal Use – [ ] Confidential – [ ] Strictest Confidence

Distribution: Publicly available

Conseil Européen des Paiements AISBL– Cours Saint-Michel 30 – B 1040 Brussels Tel: +32 2 733 35 33 Fax: +32 2 736 49 88

Enterprise N° 0873.268.927 - www.epc-cep.eu - [email protected]

for proposing a change request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Henrik Bergman

Organisation: Nordic Payments Council (NPC)

Address: Box 7603, 103 94 Stockholm, Sweden

Contact details:

[email protected]

Your reference:

-

Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to:

EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date:

For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website:

https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 173: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#40 -SCT-NPC-ERI option to support pointers or references to external sources 2

1 General Description of the Change Request

1.1 Suggested launch date (if any):

As soon as possible.

1.2 Description of the change request:

Hyper link or external sources to be referenced in ERI.

The comment is regarding pointers/references to external sources of ERI information in section 2.7. The current chosen standard in the Rulebook for ERI does not support pointers/references to external sources of ERI information. In the Rulebook, it seems like the model chosen is to carry all ERI information within the payment message. Since the society in general is striving to get more data to support an even more automatic way of carrying out various business processes, a suggestion would be an advantage to attach also more ERI data to the payments. For instance, by adding a reference to an external source (to avoid having a large payment message). The reference need of course to be secure and be guaranteed not to be changeable.

1.3 Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

A change in the ERI functionality, only impacting participants adhering to ERI. The security aspect needs to be verified.

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Less data in the Credit Transfer message but the security needs to be verified.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

Probably something that should be incorporated in the ISO-standard.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

Needs to be assessed.

5. The nature of the change request: b.

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

b. A variant (adding an alternative – optional – rule alongside an existing Rulebook element)

Page 174: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#40 -SCT-NPC-ERI option to support pointers or references to external sources 3

2 Elements of evaluation

The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

No, only for participants adhering to the ERI-option.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes

Page 175: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 4

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name. by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Legal Support Group (LSG)

Organisation: EPC Address: Contact details: Your reference: Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC016-06 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Core Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC222-07 2019 SEPA Direct Debit Business to Business Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 23 December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 176: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#43 -All schemes-EPC-Replacement of the term Bank with PSP and updated Customer definition

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 4

1. General Description of the Change Request

1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): November 2021

1.2. Description of the change request: The suggestion is to replace the term “Bank” with the term “PSP” in all the EPC SEPA payment scheme rulebooks to formally reflect the changes introduced by PSD to the categories of institutions that can offer payment services, and the variety in PSP categories that are eligible to adhere to the EPC SEPA payment schemes.

This change request leads to the following changes:

A. Specific term change in the rulebooks, related Implementation Guidelines and the various rulebook annexes (scheme options, risk management, internal rules): − SCT and SCT Inst schemes: “Originator Bank” and “Beneficiary Bank” changed into

“Originator PSP” and “Beneficiary PSP” − SDD Core and B2B schemes: “Debtor Bank” and “Creditor Bank” changed into “Debtor

PSP” and “Creditor PSP” − Terms of ‘interbank’ and ‘inter-bank’ (e.g., in ‘interbank space’) changed into ‘inter-

PSP’ − Term of ‘Customer-to-Bank’ and ‘Bank-to-Customer’ changed into ‘Customer-to-PSP’

and ‘PSP-to-Customer’

B. Inclusion of the definition “PSP” in Chapter 7 being

PSP Any ‘Payment Service Provider’ as defined in PSD2 that is eligible to participate in the scheme in accordance with Rulebook section 5.4

C. Removal of the last paragraph in section 5.4 making a reference to the rulebook term

“bank” or “banks”

D. Change to the term “Customer” in Chapter 7

Customer A physical or legal entity that is not active in the business of providing payment accounts used for the execution of payments and that is therefore not eligible for scheme participation For SCT and SCT Inst: Such entity can take up the role of Originator and/or Beneficiary under the Scheme

Page 177: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#43 -All schemes-EPC-Replacement of the term Bank with PSP and updated Customer definition

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 4

For SDD Core and B2B: Such entity can take up the role of Debtor or Creditor under the Scheme

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate:

1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Impact limits itself to terminology changes and any definition amendments. No business or adherence rules are affected.

2. Impact on the interbank space: /

None apart of the terminology change.

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

None.

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

Yes, removal of a dedicated sentence in Section 5.4

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

2. Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted.

Page 178: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#43 -All schemes-EPC-Replacement of the term Bank with PSP and updated Customer definition

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 4

Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes. PSP is now a widespread term and covers a wider range of players under PSD2.

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

Not necessary as it does not affect any business, technical or adherence rules.

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes. The use of a uniform term and definition of an institution that offers (among others) SEPA payment scheme services.

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes.

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes.

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes.

Page 179: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

Public

Approved

www.epc-cep.eu 1 / 4

Template for Proposing a Change Request in a SEPA Payment Scheme

EPC 045-18 Version 1.0 19 June 2019

European Payments Council AISBL Cours Saint-Michel, 30 - B - 1040 Brussels T +32 2 733 35 33 Entreprise N°0873.268.927 [email protected]

Error! Unknown document property name.

by 31 December 2019

Name of contributor:

Ellen Halden on behalf of Hanne Margrethe Sandernes

Organisation: BITS, Norwegian Banking Standardisation and Infrastructure Company Address: Hansteens gt. 2, P.O. Box 2644, Oslo, Norway Contact details: Hanne Margrethe Sandernes,<[email protected]> Your reference: BITS/HMS/EPC change req2019 Scheme and document and version number:

Highlight which EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebook(s) this change request relates to: EPC125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0 EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Request Date: 27th December 2019 For information:

This template is provided by EPC to allow any person or organisation to submit a change request for making a change to the SEPA Schemes in accordance with the rules set out in the document ‘SEPA Scheme Management Internal Rules’ (SMIRs) available on the EPC Website: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/document-library/other/sepa-scheme-management-internal-rules

Page 180: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#44 -SCT and SCT Inst-BITS-Changes to Recall, RFRO and SCT inquiry procedures

www.epc-cep.eu 2 / 4

General Description of the Change Request

1.1. Suggested launch date (if any): By next change of rulebooks

1.2. Description of the change request: EPC 125-05 2019 SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Chapter Issue Comment 4.3.2.3 Recall processing: The Norwegian

community proposes that Time limits are to be set at 5 days, both for the Originator Bank to send a Recall request, and for the Beneficiary Bank to respond. This gives a maximum time for the recall processing of 10 days.

The chances for the money to disappear (withdrawn from the bene-account) increases with a recall limit of 10 days and a respond limit of 15 days, gives a total max of 25 days.

4.4.1 SCT inquiry:

We have identified issues related to claims. Some inconcistency related to use of references, and what messages are needed. There seems to be a need for a revision and clarification of the documentation and the processes.

4.4.2 Response-to-SCT-inquiry :

Page 181: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#44 -SCT and SCT Inst-BITS-Changes to Recall, RFRO and SCT inquiry procedures

www.epc-cep.eu 3 / 4

EPC004-16 2019 SEPA Instant Credit Transfer Rulebook Version 1.0

Chapter Issue Comment Inquiry

4.3.2.3 CT-02.01 CT-02.01R

Recall processing: The Norwegian community proposes that Time limits are to be set at 3 days, both for the Originator Bank to send a Recall request, and for the Beneficiary Bank to respond. This gives a maximum time for the recall processing of 6 days.

The chances for the money to disappear (withdrawn from the bene-account) increases with a recall limit of 10 days and a respond limit of 15 days, gives a total max of 25 days.

4.5.5 DS-05

Recall of a SEPA Credit Transfer

The Norwegian community propose a new reason code 2 – Requested by customer

4.5.7 DS-07 AT50

Request for Recall by the Originater

The Norwegian community propose a new reason code CUST – Requested by customer

4.5.9 DS-09

Attributes for a positive response:

Attribute 58 as described seems to be mandatory. Should be optional since it is up to the receiving bank to decide whether to charge a fee or not.

1.3. Wherever possible, please indicate: 1. Impact on the Scheme in general:

Improvement

2. Impact on the interbank space:

Yes

3. Impact on the message standards (SEPA Scheme Implementation Guidelines and other standards):

No

4. Impact on the legal rules as defined in chapter 5 of the EPC SEPA Scheme Rulebooks:

No

5. The nature of the change request:

a. A change (deleting or replacing an existing Rulebook element by a new one)

Page 182: SEPA Credit Transfer Rulebook 2020 Change Request Public ...€¦ · banking communities and by EPC Working and Support Groups. The SCT 2020 Change Request Public Consultation Document

#44 -SCT and SCT Inst-BITS-Changes to Recall, RFRO and SCT inquiry procedures

www.epc-cep.eu 4 / 4

Elements of evaluation The submitting party is requested to give an appropriate answer to each of these questions with sufficient detail to allow the EPC to make an evaluation of the change request submitted. Is the change request a case for SEPA wide acceptance?

Yes

Is the change request underpinned by a cost-benefit analysis?

No

Does the change fit into the strategic objectives for SEPA?

Yes

Do you consider that the implementation of the change resulting from the acceptance of the change request is feasible?

Yes

Do you consider that the change request does not impede SEPA-wide interoperability?

Yes it will not impede interoperability

Do you consider that the change request is in the scope of the scheme involved?

Yes


Recommended