Legal sources with official primary sources

Printed ·

SMLM Previewerrors, bugs and incomplete coverage may occurThe model is production-ready during Q4-26

Skip to main content
Skip to the answer

Agent · psd2-2015-2366-72

PSD2 artikel 72: Evidence on authentication and execution of payment transactions

What is an agent? Agents execute decisions.

Structural tree: the article's own paragraphs, verbatim.

Also searched as: Payment Services Directive article 72 · Directive (EU) 2015/2366 article 72

CELEX 32015L2366 · 2026-08-18 · Weight 59 · minimal-risk

OpenOpen reading. No metering is planned for this class.

PSD2Official source

What this page is
Agent, PSD2 artikel 72
Checked against the official source
2026-08-18Expired
Responsible publisher
ExploreWorld Legal, editorial deskLiability position

NovaCopilot reasons out a short answer from statutes and case law, with the source right below. 5 answers a day are free.

NovaCopilot reasons: a short answer of at most 75 words, built only on our register, with the source right below.

Source: NovaCopilot

Jurisdiction

The same agent, read through one country's lens.

Inputs

  • in_scopeThe article applies to the situationboolean
  • punktParagraph of the articleenum (1 | 2 | 3)

Rule tree

  1. If: alla(in_scope = true, punkt = 1)

    Paragraph 1 applies

    1. Member States shall require that, where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction or claims that the payment transaction was not correctly executed, it is for the payment service provider to prove that the payment transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded, entered in the accounts and not affected by a technical breakdown or some other deficiency of the service provide…

    Paragraph 1

  2. If: alla(in_scope = true, punkt = 2)

    Paragraph 2 applies

    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 authenticated, 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

  3. If: alla(in_scope = true, punkt = 3)

    Paragraph 3 applies

    2. Where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the use of a payment instrument recorded by the payment service provider, including the payment initiation service provider as appropriate, 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 neg…

    Paragraph 3

If no rule matches: The article is not stated to apply, or no paragraph is selected. The agent abstains rather than guesses.

The article text as read

  1. 11. Member States shall require that, where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction or claims that the payment transaction was not correctly executed, it is for the payment service provider to prove that the payment transaction was authenticated, 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.
  2. 2If 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 authenticated, accurately recorded and not affected by a technical breakdown or other deficiency linked to the payment service of which it is in charge.
  3. 32. Where a payment service user denies having authorised an executed payment transaction, the use of a payment instrument recorded by the payment service provider, including the payment initiation service provider as appropriate, 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 69. 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.

Lineage

treatyTFEU art. 288 (direktiv)
act32015L2366
chapter-
article72
paragraphs3
jurisdictionEuropean Union (EU)
supervisorFinansinspektionen: Sweden
national-

Interface

callhttps://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/agents/psd2-2015-2366-72/run
methodGET
outputmatched, outcome, trace, missing, hash
Quota60 anrop per minut och adress, utan nyckel
stabilityRegelträdet versioneras. En ändring byter artefakthash, aldrig adress.

Hashes

textsha256:2cb5fc8e130af110b1ede39036969ab2b2b813e4bbfdd8be443b3e16a00f4885
scriptsha256:644c4bb203c9b9bb33526c97da9494ef9b031223591190d0e5c63ae206d9149c
enginesha256:0a4bd50d21f8ec9be383fc091511008b76ad61909cbfb674eab56fe567fbd7a0
agentsha256:5538995b5d6919e61baef4dd9b28721a7e55a530b54464bb5f857a8a00520707
versionagent-engine-1+legal-2026-10-30 / 5538995b5d6919e6

Artefacts

No legal advice. Deterministisk regeluppslagning. Ingen juridisk rådgivning, inget efterlevnadsbeslut, ingen bedömning av ett enskilt ärende.

Citation: 32015L2366 art. 72, Evidence on authentication and execution of payment transactions. NovaCopilot, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent/psd2-2015-2366/artikel-72 (hämtad 2026-08-18, bevis sha256:ec1bf3d136b85063, bygge legal-2026-10-30).