Agent · psd2-2015-2366-72
PSD2 artikel 72: Evidence on authentication and execution of payment transactions
Structural tree: the article's own paragraphs, verbatim.
CELEX 32015L2366 · 2026-08-18 · Weight 59 · minimal-risk
OpenOpen reading. No metering is planned for this class.
- What this page is
- Agent, PSD2 artikel 72
- Checked against the official source
- 2026-08-18Current
- Responsible publisher
- ExploreWorld Legal, editorial deskLiability position
Short answer
What does PSD2 Article 72 require, and what outcome does the rule tree give?
PSD2 Article 72 is tested here by a deterministic rule tree of 3 rules, built from the article's own conditions. The tree reads your facts and names the outcome that applies, starting with Paragraph 1 applies, carrying paragraph citation, content hash and read date 2026-08-18 against CELEX 32015L2366. The outcome is a machine classification, not a compliance decision.
PSD2 Article 72Checked against the publisher 2026-08-18Official text
- 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 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 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…
A source reference, not legal advice.
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
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
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
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Interface
Hashes
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. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent/psd2-2015-2366/artikel-72 (hämtad 2026-08-18, bevis sha256:bb3f30452398e5a2, bygge legal-2026-08-25).