# PSR Article 55 — Evidence on authorisation and execution of payment transactions

Textual state: amended_substantial. 190 words changed; 1 paragraph added

- 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- Compared against: COM(2023) 367 final — superseded.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.

## Paragraph 1

1. Where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction or claims that the payment transaction was not correctly executed, the burden shall be on the payment service provider to prove that the payment transaction was authorised, accurately recorded, entered in the accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency of the service provided by the payment service provider. If the payment transaction is initiated through a payment initiation service provider, the burden shall be on the payment initiation service provider to prove that within its sphere of competence, the payment transaction was authorised, accurately recorded and not affected by a technical breakdown or other deficiency linked to the payment service of which it is in charge.

## Paragraph 2

2. Where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the [-use of a payment instrument recorded by -]{+fact that +}the payment [-service provider, -]{+transaction was authenticated, +}including {+where applicable, via strong customer authentication, accurately recorded, entered in +}the [-payment initiation -]{+accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency of the +}service [-provider as appropriate, -]{+provided +}shall in itself not {+necessarily +}be sufficient to prove either that the payment transaction was authorised by the payer or that the payer acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to fulfil one or more of the obligations under Article 52. The payment service provider, including, where appropriate, the payment initiation service provider, shall provide supporting evidence to prove fraud or gross negligence on part of the payment service user.

## New paragraph 2a

{+2a. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, and before concluding that a payment service user has authorised the transaction, acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to fulfil one or more of the obligations under Article 52, the payment service provider shall invite the payment service user to provide information regarding the events leading up to the payment transaction and include this information in its assessment. Where the payment service user does not provide such information, this shall not in itself lead the payment service provider to conclude that the payment service user has authorised the transaction, acted fraudulently or failed with intent or gross negligence to fulfil one or more of the obligations under Article 52. The payment service user shall not be expected to provide information beyond what such a payment service user can reasonably be expected to have.+}