# PSR Article 110c — Amendment to Regulation (EU) No 260/2012

Textual state: inserted. New in the compromise text.

- Current text: Council final compromise text (Council document 8221/26) — not yet law.
- Compared against: COM(2023) 367 final — superseded.
- Classification is mechanical; method: https://paymentslaw.eu/method/
- Editorial review state: not_assessed. Markers are curated and selective, not a complete assessment.

Word-level diff, proposal → compromise: `{+text+}` was inserted, `[-text-]` was deleted.

## New paragraph 1

{+1. In Article 2, the following point is added: ‘(15a) ‘virtual IBAN’ means an identifier containing the elements specified by the ISO as referred to in point (15) and causing payments to be redirected to a payment account identified by an IBAN different from that identifier.’ .+}

## New paragraph 2

{+2. The following article is inserted: ‘Article 2a Payment account identifier For the purposes of this Regulation a virtual IBAN shall be considered to be a valid payment account identifier where the use of an IBAN is required.’+}

## New paragraph 3

{+3. Article 5c is amended as follows: (a) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: ‘PSPs shall ensure that the performance of the service ensuring verification and of the service described in paragraph 2 does not prevent payers from authorising the credit transfer concerned, without prejudice to the third subparagraph of paragraph 6.’ (b) paragraph 6 is replaced by the following: ‘PSPs shall provide PSUs that are not consumers with the means to opt out from receiving the service ensuring verification when submitting payment orders via payment initiation channels that are based on automated dedicated processes or protocols and that are only made available to PSUs that are not consumers. PSPs shall ensure that PSUs that are not consumers that opted out from receiving the service ensuring verification have the right to opt in at any time to receive that service. In the case of payment orders submitted via payment initiation channels referred to in the first subparagraph, including multiple payment orders that are submitted as a package, PSPs shall offer PSUs that are not consumers the possibility of agreeing in the framework contract that: (a) the service ensuring verification is provided after authorisation of those payment orders; and (b) the payer’s PSP executes those payment orders without any further input from the PSU only in one or more of the following cases: (i) the information received by the payer’s PSP from the payee’s PSP shows that that the name of the payee as provided by the payer matches the payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex; (ii) the information received by the payer’s PSP from the payee’s PSP shows that that the name of the payee as provided by the payer almost matches the payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex; (iii) the service ensuring verification cannot be provided because of technical reasons. The possibility for the PSU that is not a consumer to contractually agree that the payer’s PSP executes payment orders as set out in the third subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the requirement in paragraph 1, point (a), for the payer’s PSP to indicate to the payer, in cases where the name of the payee as provided by the payer almost matches the payment account identifier specified in point (1)(a) of the Annex provided by the payer, the name of the payee associated with that payment account identifier. For the purposes of paragraph 8, where the payer’s PSP proceeds to execute the payment orders in accordance with the framework contract as referred to in the third subparagraph, the payer’s PSP shall not be deemed liable for not having complied with the requirement to offer the service ensuring payee verification. ’+}