.svg)
A brewing verdict from the EU鈥檚 highest court could redefine the scope of the revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2) and bring new financial actors into compliance.
The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (CBb), the Netherlands' highest administrative court for business and economic matters, has the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to clarify a key point of European payment services law in a dispute involving Betaal Garant Nederland CV and De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB).
The case also involves Dutch homeowners' association Vereniging Eigen Huis as an interested party.
The court is asking whether a service where an intermediary receives and forwards funds, specifically where it collects payments into its own payment account and transfers them onwards after obtaining the client's consent, should qualify as a 鈥減ayment service鈥 under EU law.
More precisely, the question focuses on whether this arrangement constitutes 鈥渆xecution of payment transactions鈥 within the meaning of PSD2.
The answer could have significant implications for the regulatory classification of certain intermediated payment models across the EU, affecting licensing obligations and oversight by national competent authorities such as the DNB.
A decision from the CJEU typically takes several months. Once issued, it will provide authoritative guidance not only for the Dutch proceedings but also for similar cases across the EU.
What could this mean?
The Betaal Garant Nederland case could have significant ramifications for payment services oversight across the EU, particularly concerning the scope of services that fall within the definition of a regulated payment service under PSD2.
At the core of the dispute is whether a service that receives funds into its own payment account on behalf of a client, and later transfers those funds to a contractor after receiving the client鈥檚 consent, constitutes the 鈥渆xecution of payment transactions鈥 under PSD2.
If the CJEU rules that it does, a wide range of intermediaries, including escrow services, platforms and certain marketplace models, may find themselves dragged within the regulatory perimeter and required to obtain authorisation as payment institutions.
On the other hand, if the court finds that such services fall outside the scope of PSD2, it could provide greater legal certainty and reduce regulatory obligations for firms using similar business models.
Beyond immediate compliance concerns, the outcome of the case could also influence the final text of the Payment Services Regulation (PSR), alongside PSD3.
Depending on how the court interprets PSD2, co-legislators may adjust definitions or introduce new clarifications to either reinforce or mitigate the impact of the judgment, which could set back or change the package as stakeholders have been coming to expect it.
