ACPR customer protection questionnaire: who files in France

The ACPR’s questionnaire on commercial practices and customer protection is France’s annual conduct return, and payment and e-money institutions are not on its list of filers. The return rests on ACPR Instruction n° 2022-I-11 of 15 June 2022. It goes in through OneGate by 30 June each year and covers the year to 31 December before. On the banking side, only credit institutions and sociétés de financement with retail customers must file. For a payment institution (PI) or e-money institution (EMI), conduct supervision in France rests on complaint handling instead, under ACPR Recommendation 2024-R-02. That recommendation does name PIs and EMIs, and it also covers firms working in France under the freedom to provide services or through a branch. This piece covers the questionnaire, why a PI or EMI does not file it, what the complaints recommendation expects, and three worked cases.

1. The instrument: Instruction 2022-I-11

The questionnaire’s French title is questionnaire sur les pratiques commerciales et la protection de la clientèle. Practitioners often call it the “questionnaire PDC”. The current text is Instruction n° 2022-I-11. The ACPR adopted it under Articles L. 612-1, L. 612-2 and L. 612-24 of the Code monétaire et financier (CMF), and under the internal-control order of 3 November 2014, as amended. Its five articles set the whole regime:

• Article 1: banking and insurance each get one core form (formulaire socle) and three thematic forms. The questionnaire sent in year N covers the financial year closed on 31 December of year N-1.
• Article 2: who must answer every year (see section 2).
• Article 3: the representativeness test for the thematic forms. Together, the firms filing each form must make up 80% of the relevant market.
• Article 4: the questionnaire is on OneGate for each filer that has a legal entity identifier (LEI). A senior manager (dirigeant effectif), or someone they authorise, validates it. It is due at the ACPR no later than 30 June each year.
• Article 5: it repeals and replaces Instruction n° 2019-I-23.

The ACPR’s reporting page says the instruction has applied since the 2023 collection, which covered 2022 data. The same page described the 2025 collection (2024 data) like this. Entry on OneGate opened on 1 April 2025, the deadline was 30 June 2025, and amounts were reported in thousands of euros, rounded to the unit.

2. Who files and who does not

Article 2 lists the banking-sector filers. It applies only to firms that have consumer customers, meaning natural persons acting outside their trade, business, craft, profession or farming activity. The filers are:

• credit institutions authorised by the ACPR, except those authorised only to operate in Monaco;
• sociétés de financement (financing companies).

The list does not name payment institutions or e-money institutions, so a French-authorised PI or EMI is not a filer under the current text. The same goes for an EEA PI or EMI working in France through a branch or under the freedom to provide services. Earlier versions were broader. Instructions 2017-I-21 and 2019-I-23 also covered the entities in point 5 of Article L. 511-6 CMF. They also covered firms under Article L. 612-2 III CMF that were established in France under the freedom of establishment. The 2022 text kept neither line.

A firm with a mixed licence needs more care. A PI or EMI in a group that also holds a French credit institution files nothing in its own name. The group’s credit institution files for its own business.

3. What the questionnaire collects

For banking, the ACPR publishes the four forms as Word working files: Socle Banque, Banque au quotidien (everyday banking), Épargne (savings) and Crédits (credit). They are there to help with internal preparation. The ACPR accepts the return itself only through OneGate. Its reporting page says the questionnaire gathers four kinds of information:

• identification and activity data;
• statistics on the filer’s business;
• commercial practices and the resources devoted to them;
• the internal-control set-up for customer protection.

Every filer completes the core form. Only “representative” firms complete a thematic form. For banking, Article 3 measures representativeness by:

• Banque au quotidien: the number of deposit accounts and/or balances in current accounts in credit.
• Épargne: the number and/or outstanding value of savings contracts.
• Crédits: the number and/or outstanding value of consumer or home loans.

The ACPR also publishes a guide to filling in the banking forms (guide d’aide au remplissage). It explains the questionnaire’s concepts so that answers are consistent across filers.

4. Channel and sign-off

Filing needs a OneGate accreditation. The ACPR’s banking reporting page adds a second step: a separate request to extend user rights, described in its “Annexe Banque” procedure. A filer with a OneGate account for other returns still needs that extension before the questionnaire appears.

The identifier has changed over time. Instructions 2017-I-21 and 2019-I-23 identified banking filers by their interbank code (CIB). Instruction 2022-I-11 uses the LEI. It also allows for later XML-XBRL transmission, if the ACPR sets technical specifications and sends them to the firms concerned.

Sign-off is personal. A senior manager, or a person they have authorised who has the competence and position to vouch for the data, validates the return. Under Article 4, the senior managers stay responsible for its quality and reliability whatever they delegate.

5. The instruction’s history

The questionnaire has been rewritten several times. The table compares the last three texts, all read in their published form.

Older texts (2012-I-07, 2015-I-22) also exist; any legacy scope note should be rechecked against the current Article 2.

6. What applies to PIs and EMIs instead: Recommendation 2024-R-02

The ACPR’s conduct instrument that names PIs and EMIs is Recommendation 2024-R-02 of 2 July 2024 on complaint handling. It replaced Recommendation 2022-R-01 of 9 May 2022. It is addressed to credit institutions, credit servicers, financing companies, payment institutions, account information service providers (AISPs), e-money institutions and issuers of asset-referenced tokens under MiCA, as well as to insurers and intermediaries. It also covers firms working in France under the freedom to provide services or through a branch. For an AISP, it covers only complaints about the security of the data it collects.

The recommendation defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction with a professional, whoever receives it. A complaint can come from someone with no contract with the firm, such as a former customer, a beneficiary or a declined applicant. A request for a service, information or an opinion is not a complaint. Complaints sent to a payment-services agent or an e-money distributor count as received by the firm.

Its main expectations:

• identify complaints on every channel. Invite a customer who complained by phone or chat to put it in writing if the matter cannot be settled at once;
• acknowledge a written complaint in writing within ten business days of sending, unless the full answer is sent within that time;
• answer in writing, clearly and with reasons, within the time the firm has promised and at most two months, unless a stricter rule applies;
• keep a record of written complaints, the answers and how each was followed up, including where the handling is outsourced;
• publish on a dedicated web page, open without login, how to complain, the handling times and the relevant mediator. Name that mediator in every reply;
• give the firm’s governance bodies, at least once a year, a summary of how well the system works and of any failings found through complaints, with the corrective action taken.

For payment services, PSD2 sets a stricter deadline. Article 101(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 requires a reply within 15 business days, extendable to 35 business days in exceptional cases, with a holding reply. The two-month ceiling in the recommendation gives way to that rule.

7. How the two instruments connect

The two instruments refer to each other. Footnote 17 of Recommendation 2024-R-02 points firms to the questionnaire and its filling-in guides as a help in recognising complaints. A PI or EMI can therefore use the banking guide as an interpretation aid, even though it files no return. Point 3.3.3 of the recommendation asks firms that must have internal control to build its practices, and the customer-protection risks seen in complaints, into that control framework. For a French PI or EMI, that framework is the 3 November 2014 internal-control order.

8. Worked case: a French EMI asked “do we file the PDC?”

Facts: a French-authorised EMI with a retail customer base sees the 30 June deadline on a peer bank’s calendar. The board asks whether it has missed a filing.

Applicable rule: Article 2 of Instruction 2022-I-11 lists ACPR-authorised credit institutions and financing companies only. E-money institutions are not on it.

What the compliance officer does: writes a one-page scope memo citing Article 2. The memo records that no OneGate rights extension for the questionnaire is needed, and it is filed with the regulatory calendar. The same memo maps the firm’s conduct duties to Recommendation 2024-R-02 and confirms the annual complaints summary is on the board agenda.

Outcome: the board gets a sourced “no”. The firm puts its effort into the obligation that does apply to it.

9. Worked case: an EEA EMI with a French branch

Facts: an e-money institution authorised in another member state serves French consumers through a branch in Paris. Its complaint process was built for its home market. It acknowledges complaints in English and answers in up to 35 business days for every product.

Applicable rule: the questionnaire does not cover the branch. Recommendation 2024-R-02 does, because it applies to firms working in France through a branch. For complaints about payment services, PSD2 Article 101 sets 15 business days as the normal deadline. The 35-day extension is for exceptional cases only.

What the compliance officer does: adds a French complaints page that is open without login and names the competent mediator. Sets a ten-business-day acknowledgement rule. Limits the 35-day route to documented exceptional cases with a holding reply. Adds the branch’s complaints to the annual governance summary.

Outcome: the branch’s process matches what the ACPR would test in an inspection. The home supervisor’s reporting does not change.

10. Worked case: a group that also holds a bank licence

Facts: a payments group runs a French PI and, separately, a French credit institution that opens current accounts for consumers.

Applicable rule: the credit institution has consumer customers, so it files the core form every year by 30 June. It files the Banque au quotidien form only if the ACPR treats it as representative under Article 3. The PI files nothing.

What the compliance officer does: gets the LEI-based OneGate accreditation and rights extension for the credit institution. Collects its full-year figures in thousands of euros. Has a senior manager validate the return. Makes sure the PI’s complaint data does not slip into the bank’s return.

Outcome: one return, for the right entity, signed by someone who can vouch for it.

FAQ

What to do, today

• PI and EMI compliance: record in your regulatory calendar that Instruction 2022-I-11 does not apply, and cite Article 2.
• Complaints owner: check acknowledgement times, reply deadlines and the complaints web page against Recommendation 2024-R-02 and PSD2 Article 101.
• Board secretary: schedule the annual complaints summary, covering quality, failings and corrective action.
• Groups with a French bank: confirm the credit institution’s OneGate rights extension and LEI before entry opens, and fix who validates the return by 30 June.

Related: Conduct and complaints reporting in France · OneGate reporting channel · France reporting calendar for PIs and EMIs